L
longbow51
Guest
Read Desert Solitaire. Ed Abbey.
Glen Canyon
- Thread starter Hayduke
- Start date
Bambistew
Well-known member
I like the list. numbers 2 and 3 will be challenging, especially number 2.
all those boxes nearly are checked in colorado. i don't know if that means we are lacking in water problems though, certainly, in some ways it might be preventing more probelms. we're very established on surface water/groundwater connections with legislation which is huge in preventing some big problems.
i wouldn't say we have state funded adjudications though, to a degree with ISF. but they still have to compete in the free market for ISF adjudications.
i'm not sure if stopping new adjudications does much in a strict prior appropriation system, so as long as the new appropriation falls under the priority system. i mean new appropriations would continue to be harmful should your tributary aquifers not be legally recognized as connected to surface water, thereby having them not fall under the prior appropriation system.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Yes but the sooner the better, with regard to first in time
You can also set that as a goal from a lead environmental permitting/managing agency, and simply acquire sufficient rights to get to that threshold. Here in WA the tribes have somewhat successfully argued that fish=water and that since they were promised x amount of fish then should be guaranteed x amount of water.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Is the "big-ness" of the problems monetary or legal?
in reference to groundwater/surface water legislation?
or in the big picture of "is there enough water to go around?"
in the big picture the problems are monetary. there is more than enough water to satisfy a growing population, it just has to come from changed ag rights. which also means a farm was just permanently put out of production - some people view that as a huge problem in its own right, i personally do not, necessarily.
our municipal budgets have no issue with that, because that's how it's always worked, so they're well stocked for it.
now i do think our 1969 water rights determination act has prevented big problems, hydrologically and legally. because it means we've had robust legislation for over 50 years now that put's tributary groundwater water rights on par with surface water rights when it comes to the priority system.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
IMO monetary problems aren't "big" problems.
Big problems arise when you don't have a legal framework to operate within and a physical lack of water. AZ, UT, and NV, maybe NM, have physical availability issues.
Big problems arise when you don't have a legal framework to operate within and a physical lack of water. AZ, UT, and NV, maybe NM, have physical availability issues.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Great point! Numerous municipalities and water providers in close proximity often share the same supply. Each has developed and distributed water differently for decades. States also have complex laws based on historic sources and allotments which also come into play.
The painful truth is we need building moratoriums in many areas. Perhaps permanent in some locations! But elected leaders can't make the proclamation.
On a plus note I am thankful to see the agreement where Utah commits water to the Navajo people and is now working to create water system on the Utah portion of the nation. Should have happened a century ago and hopefully other states and nations will follow.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I am unaware of anywhere in the US that has truly reached a level where full on moratoriums are needed because there is insufficient water supplies for domestic uses. The only moratoriums I'm aware were placed to allow additional infrastructure or water rights to be acquired.
(Opinion) Phil Weiser & Rebecca Mitchell: New guidelines can save the Colorado River
The Colorado River is the moving force of the West. It provides water to 40 million people and is vital to economic prosperity in the western states it runs through.
www.greeleytribune.com
Piece by our Attorney General and our CWCB Director/Colorado's Commissioner to the Upper Colorado River Commission
"For the long-term, we must manage the river in light of depleted storage and drier conditions. Finding lasting solutions will require us to first recognize that depleted storage in Lake Powell is largely the result of releases to meet the downstream needs of the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada.
The Lower Basin’s ability to overuse water in the face of diminishing supplies reflects a limitation of the 2007 Interim Guidelines. The current guidelines are out of sync with the diminishing supplies in the Colorado River and depleted storage in the system. Any new guidelines must require the Lower Basin to manage its uses within the available supply from the Colorado River, account for depletions within the Lower Basin, and restore resilience in the system by increasing storage levels. This will require hard choices and bold actions. We must learn from our experience under the 2007 Interim Guidelines and collaborate with our partners to make the next set of reservoir operating rules sustainable for all the Basin States."
anyone who is still following this.
lots of interesting pieces and tangles to this big nasty web. this sorta gives quick insight into the lack of understanding (and authority) the federal government seems to have with what they are "threatening/demanding," for lack of a better term on my part.
knpr.org
lots of interesting pieces and tangles to this big nasty web. this sorta gives quick insight into the lack of understanding (and authority) the federal government seems to have with what they are "threatening/demanding," for lack of a better term on my part.
Upper Colorado River leaders push back against federal ask for conservation
One of Colorado’s top water officials says he cannot enforce recent federal demands to start conserving more on the Colorado River. State engineer Kevin…
knpr.org
Last edited:
To Rein's point, the lower basin is allocated 7.5 maf and I think they are currently using in the neighborhood of 10.5 maf.anyone who is still following this.
lots of interesting pieces and tangles to this big nasty web. this sorta gives quick insight into the lack of understanding AND authority the federal government seems to have with what they are "threatening/demanding," for lack of a better term on my part.
Upper Colorado River leaders push back against federal ask for conservation
One of Colorado’s top water officials says he cannot enforce recent federal demands to start conserving more on the Colorado River. State engineer Kevin…
Tribes have rights to a huge portion of the river, and I doubt they utilize a fraction of it.
Colorado River crisis giving tribes new opportunities to right century-old water wrongs
Early involvement in negotiating new Colorado River guidelines will be critical for tribes to determine their future.
waterdesk.org
To Rein's point, the lower basin is allocated 7.5 maf and I think they are currently using in the neighborhood of 10.5 maf.
Tribes have rights to a huge portion of the river, and I doubt they utilize a fraction of it.
Colorado River crisis giving tribes new opportunities to right century-old water wrongs
Early involvement in negotiating new Colorado River guidelines will be critical for tribes to determine their future.
exactly.
lower basin has been consistently over their allocation. upper basin has been consistently under their 7.5.
so from that perspective, it's a non starter, at least under the current compact to look at the upper basin and even ask, let alone order, water users to curtail.
then purely from a water rights perspective, the state engineers office is the only entity with the authority to curtail a water right in colorado, the feds have zero, zilch, authority there. so it's an empty threat. then, the state engineers office further has no authority to curtail water rights that are physically and legally available.
so,
1) we're under compact allocation: check
2) we're in compliance with the compact (see no. 1): check
3) the water rights are physically and legally available: check
4) the 10th amendment exists: check
ergo, the state engineers office has no authority and is no position to do what the feds are asking/threatining and the feds have no authority to force it.
if the feds double down there will be some big legal tussles coming fast that i see the upper basin as having a very solid footing on.
until the compact is renegotiated i see this as being the way it is.
I foresee lots of people with worthless paper claiming water rights where there is no water to have a right to.
I'm next to the Continental Divide, at the very eastern edge of the Little Colorado basin. There has been talk of the State Eng. Office placing meters on new wells in NM.
This has come from a greedy a hole trying to pump millions of gallons a day on the east side of the divide, in the Plains of San Augustine. No end point named ever. TX for fracking? Albacrackie to give unlimited water to FB & Amazon where there is no water? So far we have stopped it for 10 years. But the Italian ass has billions and keeps refiling.
He has some paper.
My 2 small wells will be metered in the future while an ahole washes his car in Henderson or some clown can build another pool in the desert, another socal golfcourse or almond milk farm in CA?
With an ocean of water right nearby? A Mississippi river that floods the plains nearby? Morons run the world.
I'm next to the Continental Divide, at the very eastern edge of the Little Colorado basin. There has been talk of the State Eng. Office placing meters on new wells in NM.
This has come from a greedy a hole trying to pump millions of gallons a day on the east side of the divide, in the Plains of San Augustine. No end point named ever. TX for fracking? Albacrackie to give unlimited water to FB & Amazon where there is no water? So far we have stopped it for 10 years. But the Italian ass has billions and keeps refiling.
He has some paper.
My 2 small wells will be metered in the future while an ahole washes his car in Henderson or some clown can build another pool in the desert, another socal golfcourse or almond milk farm in CA?
With an ocean of water right nearby? A Mississippi river that floods the plains nearby? Morons run the world.
Aperventure
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2018
- Messages
- 139
Francis Utah issued a new construction moratorium last year. UTAH!
marksjeep
Well-known member
this has been one of my burning questions too - "what about DOIs authority to order their local offices to reduce federal project diversions, unilaterally?"
i'm waiting to finish some conversations with others about this with whom i've asked this question. but so far, and i think as the article alludes to, it may be way more complicated than "it's a federal project so the feds can decide (force) their local officials to reduce, or curtail." and it will depend on the project, especially the ones run by local conservancy districts. maybe it will depend on where they are in their repayment contract. ours is actually repaid.
in my case, yes it's a water right owned by the federal government in the state of colorado, and in theory the feds can tell themselves to curtail and it's not usurping state authority, just like any farmer could decide to forgo diversion he's entitled to for some reason. but the project is co operated by us, a local conservancy district. and i think the contractual language is so intertwined and complicated that what ultimately ends up happening (i also need to look at the decree language) is that it's our water right too, and we're not the feds, and then we're back to it's a water right in the state of colorado the feds can't force to curtail.
you go further down the line of contracts and anyone that owns a unit of C-BT has an entitlement to that water right, i.e. it's their water right too.
in summary, i already have a feeling our legal counsel is not too concerned about this angle of federal intervention. but other projects
marksjeep
Well-known member
Back in the day on the C-BT, my understanding was that Reclamation held the rights "in trust" for the benefit of the project. I agree, in that I don't see how a local office could operate a local project to the detriment of the project, regardless of the reasoning behind it, and have any legal leg to stand on. Forgoing diversions on the C-BT would certainly be detrimental.
The irrigation water for my fields is provided by the Grand Valley Project... so also waiting to see where this all goes.
The irrigation water for my fields is provided by the Grand Valley Project... so also waiting to see where this all goes.
Well and another thought occurred to me after my original post. Say DOI decided they indeed can and did order ECAO to slice 100 cfs off the Adam’s diversion per day on average for the irrigation season, or something, and release it from granby dam instead.
Dominion and control is now lost and it’s water of the river open to the taking by anyone. The state engineer is under no obligation or authority to ferry that water to the state line, and GVWUA or GVIC can go ahead and pick it up if they want to, if it even makes it that far down the river. It’s futile, on the part of the feds, really.
marksjeep
Well-known member
Yep. Always been a tricky part of "fish" releases too.
Similar threads
