Rocky Mountain Front, the latest info

[BHR]

Finalshot,

Thanks for the response. I did not say you could not mandate fuel mileage, I said that you cannot mandate what car someone wishes to buy. If I don't like the new cars or trucks out there for sale, I'll just stick to the one I already own, or buy a used one that I like. I can see from your post, your a Big Government guy. You can probably surmise from mine that I am not.

I am interested in your local small scale energy production technology idea. Please provide a link so we can see what you are talking about. I gather you are not in favor of the pipeline. Correct? This technology you mentioned is powered by electricity I am assuming. How do you feel about hydro? How did you feel about the recent initiative in Montana to look into State ownership of some of the dams?

Answer these questions when you have time.

Thanks Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- I would love to see gas prices go up to drive conservation. Most people don't give a damn about anything until it affects there pocketbook. It would only take a few years of high gas prices and long, cold winters for demand to create supply of something cheaper. Something would be thought of. I can deal with a price increase, that's why my wife works!

As far as poor people...well, I'm a bit of a Darwinist.

Along the same lines, I think water in the West is too cheap. I pay $40/mo. for secondary water and can use as much as I please. Back home in IN, we had to pay sewage costs for every gal. that we used, whether it was outside or not and that was living less than 20mi. from the Ohio or Wabash, both of which are larger than most any river I've seen in UT.

 

[Finalshot]

Boy, you sure have a lot of questions, that's good. As far as providing web links, I'll have to find you a few. But, keep one thing in mind. The www only has information that someone has felt compelled to add.

That means there are limits to its usefulness. Not everything in on the www. Much of what on the www is paid for by the government through grants. Some money comes from foundations and endowments, but a lot of the information that we use comes from tax dollars.

Now, if you want to know more about what I think I'll be happy to keep posting but you should come and sit in my environmental science class.

Also, I'm a government guy. Shouldn’t everyone be? I used to be in the big government. Today, I work in the private sector and teach, but I believe Government has its place. I'm realistic. Income transfers are a necessary part of any large-scale system.

Maybe you need to study history a little more?

I did not say that I think we have the best system or that I like paying for a bunch of needless activities, but I do think the government has a role in supporting and paying for conservation and new technology.

Keep your thoughts coming. They aren’t bad.

Thank you, Finalshot

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

I'm in agreement with you on being a bit of a Darwinist myself. I also agree that water is going to be a huge issue in the years to come and it's never too early to start learning what it's true value is. Like any other resource that is cheap and available, people give it very little thought until they can't have it. Then their pissed.

Paul

 

[Finalshot]

Question if the day,

Who was it that said,

"Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting."

I completely agree - water quantity and water quality are among the most critical natural resources issues of today.

Water should be marketed!

Water should be measured at the point of diversion!

Water rights should be severable from the land!

Water should only be places on land that is authorized for irrigation (no water spreading).

Rights to water should only amount to the quantity of water that a crop SHOULD need in combination with the soil. In practice, this means that no land should get an allocation of more than 4 acre-feet. If you cant grow it with 4 acre-feet your either in bad soil or growing the wrong crop for the climate.

Water should always be put to its highest and best use and at a fare market price.

Reserved water rights are PRIORITY rights and should quantified as soon as possible in federal court, not state.

Water should not be put back into a stream if it does not meet the receiving water state or federal water quality standards, including temperature.

Irrigators should repay, in today’s dollars with interest, the cost of irrigation development. No more no-interest loans with unlimited pay back periods.

Chew on those thought for a while.

Finalshot

 

[Yukon Hunter]

Chew on this for a while- some day, in the not-too-distant future, the U.S. will annex Canada for it's water supplies.

 

[Finalshot]

Actually, there are proposals to pipe the water from the Fraser down to the US! Imagin that! The US is currently in litigation with canada over polluted water in the Columbia.

Somday the US will get the canadian water.

Later, Finalshot

 

[BuzzH]

How about sedimentation being considered a "pollutant"? It should be and streams should be listed under impaired watersheds by the DEQ because of it.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of water...what about how it relates to drilling the front and Coal Bed Methane Developement.

Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Extraction
Has Come to Montana
By Craig Sharpe, Executive Director
Montana Wildlife Federation
April/May 2002

Water

Water is the major by-product of the CBM extraction process. A single well may discharge from 12 to 20 gallons of water every minute (gpm) or approximately 17,000 to 28,000 gallons every day. When first drilled, up to 70 gpm may be withdrawn. Most distressing is that this water is pumped from subsurface groundwaters within the primary aquifers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Using conservative estimates of the number of potential wells in Montana, this could result in the withdrawal of at least 480 billion gallons of water.

Water is a requirement for all living things and in southeastern Montana, which receives less than 10 inches of moisture a year, it is a valuable and precious resource. The coal seams are the primary aquifers that hold the difference between life and death. Aquifers in this arid region, according to some reports, will take between 100-200 hundred years to recharge or refill if the water is withdrawn at predicted rates based on known coal volumes. For the agricultural community, the withdrawal could mean the loss of crop irrigation, springs and artesian wells, and domestic and stock watering wells. Many of these ranches have been reliant on the subsurface waters for 100 years and now they may lose it all. The natural carrying capacity of the land for plant communities, native flora, fauna, and subirrigated crops could also diminish. For local communities, the affects could be staggering.

CBM industry proponents claim that water discharged by the wells can be used for beneficial uses, but those uses are marginal at best. While marginally potable for humans and cattle, this water is unsuitable for crop irrigation, sustainable healthy fisheries, and even lawn watering. A major problem lies in elevated salinity or dissolved salts. Each CBM well produces about 20 tons of salt in a year. The polluted discharge water, or "product water," is deadly to many Montana native plants. Any use of the CBM wastewater on our landscapes will affect soil fertility. On some lands where CBM development has taken place, polluted waters are openly discharged on the surface on non-porous or clay soils, killing nearly every plant. Additionally, CBM discharged waters can contain high levels of arsenic, ammonia, boron, iron, manganese, radium, and fluoride. Discharged water high in sodium bicarbonates and other minerals is also incompatible with healthy fish populations.

The discharge of these waters into streams, rivers, coulees, irrigation ditches, and reservoirs, and onto surface soils, as is done at most operations, will adversely effect their ability to support a diversity of plant and aquatic life.

Requiring the discharged water to be held in holding facilities or containment ponds is one effort at mitigating environmental effects. However, most CBM development companies sight the increased cost of "lined" ponds as unreasonable. A danger with "unlined" ponds is that they can seep millions of gallons of high sodium water into nearby streams and rivers. Additionally, the question must be asked, "Who will clean up the pond after the site is no longer productive or are we creating another superfund site 10-20 years down the road?"

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

All these issues should be addressed and resolved before the CBM drilling takes place. If building a suitable holding pond to contain the waste water is too costly, then again CBM drilling should not take place.

If the product water is as toxic as this article leads us to believe, then I wouldn't want to be drinking it. Sounds like all the well water from these type aquifers would be bad for human consumption.

Is there any other method to retrieve CBM without producing waste water?

Paul

 

[Yukon Hunter]

Gents-
I e-mailed Val Geist about the Coal Mine area, as well as his opinion on opening up the Front.
Here's the text of his reply. Nothing too surprising...
"Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick,

The large horned rams that are now growing on Alberta's reclaimed coal mines
have the same horn color as those in the Rockies. We observed that sheep
from Jasper park, which strayed onto our reclaimed mines, never returned
again to Jasper! I suspect that food made the difference as such grows in
abundance and exceptional quality on the reclaimed mines. Opening up areas
for drilling is a bad idea as it creates roads that eventually destroy
sheep. Roads into sheep country are counter productive! Sincerely, Val Geist"

 

[BHR]

Yuke,

I see you've gone to the expert to check up on my comments. I will not doubt Val's comments are accurate, but have heard or read somewhere in the past that the unique darkness of these large rams horns, are a result of the coal dust in the area. I'll check my resources to see if I can find where that belief came from.

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

Finalshot,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I completely agree - water quantity and water quality are among the most critical natural resources issues of today.

Water should be marketed!

Water should be measured at the point of diversion!

Water rights should be severable from the land!

Water should only be places on land that is authorized for irrigation (no water spreading).

Rights to water should only amount to the quantity of water that a crop SHOULD need in combination with the soil. In practice, this means that no land should get an allocation of more than 4 acre-feet. If you cant grow it with 4 acre-feet your either in bad soil or growing the wrong crop for the climate.

Water should always be put to its highest and best use and at a fare market price.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to take exception with you, but Water does not have to be marketed, diverted, or sold. It can remain in the rivers, as it was intended, and provide habitat for the fish in the river.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Elkgunner,

The last part of Finalshot's post says "Water should always be put to its highest and best use and at a fair market price."

So I don't think he is necessarily saying it has to be "marketed, diverted, or sold." He's just saying water should have a price. If fish habitat is seen as the best use for that water, then that is what that water should be used for. And I agree with that. Fish, especially endangered species, should take precedence over some farmer's profits.

 

[JoseCuervo]

WH,

I hope he does not believe that every river needs to be de-watered, to the highest bidder. But his first comment of "Water should be marketed!" kind of points to a belief that water in a river has no value.

I have yet to see any of the 3 Sockeyes Salmon that struggle to swim 900 miles back to Redfish Lake carrying a check book with them, so they can buy water for their smolts to swim back the next spring. They can barely make it back, as it is, due to man's efforts to extinct them, asking them to carry checkbooks might be too much.

 

[1_pointer]

'Gunner- No the fish don't carry checkbooks, they don't have pockets. You're silly.

What I took FS's post to say, is that if people value the resource for something or some purpose then they have to be willing to pony up the money so it can be used that way. That is why some young, idealistic punk keep harping about a balance between ecological, social, and economic issues must be balanced for good NR management.

 

[JoseCuervo]

1-Ptr,

With all due respect (people always let down their guard when you start that way...

) why would you advocate a system of institutionalized extortion?

I hate to see a process, where all of our "last best places" are threatened to be destroyed, unless a bunch of Birkenstock wearing, no leg shaving, Chai drinking, Volvo drving, Ultimate playing, English Lit majors are required to raise Billions of $$$$ just to save Natural Resources.

I would argue the Default is we leave the Natural Resources alone, unless we can prove how the "impact" can be done without ruining the Salmon (or snails or fleas, etc.. etc..). Then if you want to divert/develop, the Industry must pay for the mitigation.

 

[BHR]

For those that want to stop the drilling on the Front, this is what you are up against. A poll in this mornings paper (sorry could not find a link yet) said that 51% of Montanans favored some drilling on the Front. 30 some percent opposed and the balance undecided. Even the polling firm was surprised about the large in favor number, and attributed it to a concern about jobs and the economy in Montana.

I know a number of you will instantly think, the majority is uneducated to the facts and their opinion shouldn't matter. Well, if you guys really want to stop this drilling, you better get out and educate the people as to why drilling in this area should not take place. The garbage that the enviromentalist have shoved down the average Montanan's throat in the past decade, has no doubt made it more difficult to see why this area needs to be off limits any more than the next. Please educate us, and please provide some alternatives.

I'm still interested in FS's links and would still like answers to the questions I asked of him in reguards to the dams and proposed gas pipeline. I'll be off the puter for a while, but am looking forward reading this information when I return.

Paul

 

[dgibson]

I would ask just who is going to determine what the "highest and best use" is. That's the core of our problem with most everything, isn't it? What's the "highest and best use" of the Front Range? Depends on who you ask.

 

[Nemont]

BHR here is the article


51% back more oil, gas drilling on Front
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau

HELENA - Montana voters generally support more oil and gas drilling along the Rocky Mountain Front, a new Gazette State Poll shows.

Just over half of respondents - 51 percent - said they support allowing more oil and gas drilling along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains running from the peaks of Glacier National Park to Augusta.

Thirty-four percent of voters said they opposed drilling, while 15 percent were unsure.


The poll contacted 625 registered voters across the state and was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., from Dec. 8-10. Respondents were weighted to represent actual voter turnout in various counties in past elections. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Women voters were more closely divided on the issue. Forty-three percent were in favor of drilling; 36 percent were against it, and 21 percent were unsure. Men were more in support of drilling, with 59 percent in favor, 32 percent against it, and only 9 percent saying they were undecided.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., tried unsuccessfully earlier this year to protect from future drilling the Badger-Two Medicine area of the Front, which is held sacred by the nearby Blackfeet Indian Nation. The area contains up to 80 percent of the leases on the Front.

Former Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor Gloria Flora in 1997 put the Front off-limits to future drilling, saying the land held less value in oil and gas than it did in scenic and recreational values.

So far, that ban has held. No new drilling leases have been offered. The oil and gas leases currently under consideration were issued before Flora's ban.

Two actions this year raised interest in energy development along the range. The Lewis and Clark National Forest and Bureau of Land Management announced they were moving forward with studies looking into development of previously granted drilling leases. And the Bush administration's energy plan identified the area as an important source of natural gas.

The Montana Wildlife Federation, a hunting group, has come out against new drilling. Drillers, meanwhile, say the area could be a boon for future development.

Brad Coker, managing director for Mason-Dixon, said he was surprised that so many Montanans favored drilling in the area.

"It's probably driven by the fact that the economy is bad or perceived as bad," he said.

 

[Finalshot]

Guys, I just got the flu last night so I'll be taking a break from this thing for a couple of days. But, before I do, I have to clear up a little missunderstanding about my positions on water.

First, I'm sorry for not stating that water in the stream may in fact be the highest and best use. I also did not mean to imply that every lick of water should be marketed. After reading my post I can see how I could be missunderstood. I believe water in the river is its highest and best use. There looks to be a number of people on the board that are umfamilier with western water law so my appolgies if I skipped the concept of leaving the water in the stream - I assumed most would gather that I am somewhat of an environmentalist. Anyhow, WAHunter was right with his post about highest and best use, thanks.

In order to get water back into the streams in many places the rules I layed out in my previous post are important and will have to be turned into new water policy/law.

I'm sick i have to go back to bed, but I'll be back soon.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-16-2003 11:58: Message edited by: Finalshot ]</font>