PDA

View Full Version : Privatization of water



rickrock305
02-19-10, 12:53
This is just insane...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/18/nation/na-contested-rainwater18

DENVER — Every time it rains here, Kris Holstrom knowingly breaks the law.

Holstrom's violation is the fancifully painted 55-gallon buckets underneath the gutters of her farmhouse on a mesa 15 miles from the resort town of Telluride. The barrels catch rain and snowmelt, which Holstrom uses to irrigate the small vegetable garden she and her husband maintain.

But according to the state of Colorado, the rain that falls on Holstrom's property is not hers to keep. It should be allowed to fall to the ground and flow unimpeded into surrounding creeks and streams, the law states, to become the property of farmers, ranchers, developers and water agencies that have bought the rights to those waterways.

What Holstrom does is called rainwater harvesting. It's a practice that dates back to the dawn of civilization, and is increasingly in vogue among environmentalists and others who pursue sustainable lifestyles. They collect varying amounts of water, depending on the rainfall and the vessels they collect it in. The only risk involved is losing it to evaporation. Or running afoul of Western states' water laws.

Those laws, some of them more than a century old, have governed the development of the region since pioneer days.

"If you try to collect rainwater, well, that water really belongs to someone else," said Doug Kemper, executive director of the Colorado Water Congress. "We get into a very detailed accounting on every little drop."

Frank Jaeger of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, on the arid foothills south of Denver, sees water harvesting as an insidious attempt to take water from entities that have paid dearly for the resource.

"Every drop of water that comes down keeps the ground wet and helps the flow of the river," Jaeger said. He scoffs at arguments that harvesters like Holstrom only take a few drops from rivers. "Everything always starts with one little bite at a time."

Increasingly, however, states are trying to make the practice more welcome. Bills in Colorado and Utah, two states that have limited harvesting over the years, would adjust their laws to allow it in certain scenarios, over the protest of people like Jaeger.

Organic farmers and urban dreamers aren't the only people pushing to legalize water harvesting. Developer Harold Smethills wants to build more than 10,000 homes southwest of Denver that would be supplied by giant cisterns that capture the rain that falls on the 3,200-acre subdivision. He supports the change in Colorado law.

We believe there is something to rainwater harvesting," Smethills said. "We believe it makes economic sense."

Collected rainwater is generally considered "gray water," or water that is not reliably pure enough to drink but can be used to water yards, flush toilets and power heaters. In some states, developers try to include a network of cisterns and catchment pools in every subdivision, but in others, those who catch the rain tend to do so covertly.

In Colorado, rights to bodies of water are held by entities who get preference based on the dates of their claims. Like many other Western states, Colorado has more claims than available water, and even those who hold rights dating back to the late 19th century sometimes find they do not get all of the water they should.

"If I decide to [take rainwater] in 2009, somewhere, maybe 100 miles downstream, there's a water right that outdates me by 100 years" that's losing water, said Kevin Rein, assistant state engineer.

State Sen. Chris Romer found out about this facet of state water policy when he built his ecological dream house in Denver, entirely powered by solar energy. He wanted to install a system to catch rainwater, but the state said it couldn't be permitted.

"It was stunning to me that this common-sense thing couldn't be done," said Romer, a Democrat. He sponsored a bill last year to allow water harvesting, but it did not pass.

"Welcome to water politics in Colorado," Romer said. "You don't touch my gun, you don't touch my whiskey, and you don't touch my water."

Romer and Republican state Rep. Marsha Looper introduced bills this year to allow harvesting in certain circumstances. Armed with a study that shows that 97% of rainwater that falls on the soil never makes it to streams, they propose to allow harvesting in 11 pilot projects in urban areas, and for rural users like Kris Holstrom whose wells are depleted by drought.

In contrast to the high-stakes maneuvering in the capital, Holstrom looks upon the state's regulation of rainwater with exasperated amusement.

Holstrom, director of sustainability for Telluride, and her husband, John, have lived on their farm since 1988. During the severe drought at the start of this decade, their well began drying up. Placing rain barrels under the gutters was the natural thing to do, said Holstrom, 51.

"Rain out here comes occasionally, and can come really hard," she said. "To be able to store it for when you need it is really great."

Holstrom had a vague awareness of state regulations. She decided to test it last summer when she was teaching a class on water harvesting. She called the state water department, which told her it was technically illegal, though it was unlikely that she would be cited.

Holstrom is known in southwestern Colorado for a lifestyle and causes that many deem quixotic. The land she and her husband own holds a yurt and tepees to house "interns" who help on their organic farm in the summers. It boasts a greenhouse, which even on a recent snowy day held an oasis of rosemary, artichokes, salad greens and a fig tree.

She plucked a bit of greens from one plant and munched on it as goldfish swam in a small, algae-filled pond that helps heat the enclosure. "This has been my passion for a long time -- trying to live the best way I know how," she said.

rickrock305
02-19-10, 12:56
Water is shaping up to be the new oil...

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/04/08/020408fa_FACT1

Irish
02-19-10, 13:03
The first article is absolute and utter bullshit, especially the bolded quote.
I'd suggest posting the link to the first article in that post.

rickrock305
02-19-10, 13:08
done.

i agree, its hard to believe. truth is stranger than fiction.

tracker722
02-19-10, 13:17
******

bulbvivid
02-19-10, 14:13
I remember seeing that article when it came out (March '09). I wonder if they've changed any of the laws since then.

Nathan_Bell
02-19-10, 14:31
Wouldn't a better thread label be "Collectivization of Water"? Since the water boards (not to be confused with waterboards) are stating that it belongs to all of the state's populace and that they are the ones chosen to represent the people in regards to this resource.

chadbag
02-19-10, 14:56
Utah has dumb laws like this too. I think the land owners ought to charge the water rights holders an access fee for the water to cross their property or something like that. Instead they charge the homeowner a water runoff charge.

A car dealership here in Utah wanted to catch the rain water to use in its car wash facility but got dinged by the law.

Abraxas
02-19-10, 15:09
Total BS

Gatorhunt
02-19-10, 15:24
Wow ... that is totally FUBAR'd.

Volucris
02-19-10, 15:44
Ah the wonderful smell of corruption. Can't make more money? Just get a politician to make laws to protect you so you can both share the spoils.


No one owns water.

chadbag
02-19-10, 15:54
Ah the wonderful smell of corruption. Can't make more money? Just get a politician to make laws to protect you so you can both share the spoils.


No one owns water.

You have to have some way to adjudicate disputes on water use. Should someone higher up on the river have the right to divert so much water into their fields that you get just a trickle? Those kinds of questions. So bodies of law surrounding "water rights" arose. Eastern states generally have a law that the owner of the land has the rights to the water on that land. Western states generally do it differently, based on their heritage of pioneering and no one owning most of the land...

I agree that what we see is dumb, but it grew out of a need that goes back 150 years or more to adjudicate water rights.

I would seriously like to see someone try and charge a water rights holder for damage to their property from rain damage or a passage fee for rain water passing over their land. It would bring to the fore how dumb these sorts of things are. Hey, these people claim the water belongs to them so get it off my land!

Volucris
02-19-10, 16:04
It's not the water you should be able to own or pay for, it's the service of bringing the water to you. If you have a well on your property you should not be oppressed by the government to give money to other people for it. Then it is theft.

chadbag
02-19-10, 16:53
It's not the water you should be able to own or pay for, it's the service of bringing the water to you. If you have a well on your property you should not be oppressed by the government to give money to other people for it. Then it is theft.

It is not a question of having a well (well it could be but in general isn't -- water rights are complicated -- owning the land out west does not mean you have the right to drill a well but if you already have the well then you probably own water rights). It is water from rivers, streams, rainwater, etc that is the focus of this.

However, why should it not be the water you own or pay for? Water is a tangible physical object.

Volucris
02-19-10, 17:20
As is air.

chadbag
02-19-10, 17:22
As is air.

And, your point? water is a lot easier to corral and keep track of than air. And air is not in limited supply and does not cause disputes about access to air (now keeping the air clean does)

And you can buy air and various gases that make up air.

rickrock305
02-19-10, 17:40
owning the land out west does not mean you have the right to drill a well but if you already have the well then you probably own water rights).

that is just dumb. if its my land, i should own everything own that land. and that means i should have the right to drill a well on my land if i so choose.

thats like saying, "hey, we know this is your land that you bought and paid for, but unfortunately for you we have the rights to all the dirt."



However, why should it not be the water you own or pay for? Water is a tangible physical object.



prove to me that rainwater i collect came from your water.

FromMyColdDeadHand
02-19-10, 17:48
Having grown up in the midwest, where we worried more about flooding than drought (can you really drain Lake Michigan?), it was hard for me to wrap my head around water out here in Colorado.

They build bridges over dry land that is called a river, because it flows, sometimes.

It would be interesting in that while modern suburbia uses more processed water, it also sheds more rain water due to pavement and drainage.

You can talk about a cistern, but the real bandit is evaporation. Sweet walk-on-water Jesus water evaporates fast here, with the low humidity and air pressure. Snow seems to sublimate since it evaporates as fast as it melts.

Water here is like parking in Manhattan.

Whenever I'm on the other side of the divide, I always try to pee in a stream. Your welcome California!!

Yes, the water rights thing is horrible. None of you should move out here unless you want to desicate!

chadbag
02-19-10, 18:27
that is just dumb. if its my land, i should own everything own that land. and that means i should have the right to drill a well on my land if i so choose.


I personally agree with you. However, that is not how it works. There is also the concept of "mineral rights"

On the east coast it does work the way you and I think it should. Not out here in the water poor and dry air fast evaporation west.



thats like saying, "hey, we know this is your land that you bought and paid for, but unfortunately for you we have the rights to all the dirt."



google "mineral rights" as well




prove to me that rainwater i collect came from your water.

Don't have to. Water rights generally works on the basis of how much you can take.

I agree with the "this is dumb" sentiment.

I do not agree with the idea that water should be free however.

dhrith
02-19-10, 18:43
Frank Jaeger of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, on the arid foothills south of Denver, sees water harvesting as an insidious attempt to take water from entities that have paid dearly for the resource.

roflmao

And the homeowners/land owners didn't pay dearly? Trying to charge for rain is just damn stupid, now if you were dropping a well to bottle water and ship it away so much that you influenced the aquifer, well I can see that. These people aren't transporting it away though, they're just influencing when it hits the ground so their plants etc can grow better or wash, flush in between the rain periods. I am vehemently against piping the great lakes to outlying states though, that's just a crock of shit. They'd suck these damn lakes dry. Maybe my knowledge of how much this can potentially influence the aquifer out west is faulty, but I suspect not, again they're not shpping the water out of state or something like that, just it's pattern of hitting the ground.

Belmont31R
02-19-10, 19:00
I only see it as another encroachment on private land ownership.

chadbag
02-19-10, 22:38
I only see it as another encroachment on private land ownership.

Except that these water rights laws have existed basically since "civilization" arrived in the West. This is not a new thing.

I think that the people who own the water rights would agree with you if you replace "land" above with "property." These people own the water rights and feel that people who set up cisterns are robbing them of their rightful property.

I personally think that the water rights should start once you get to a piece of water big enough to worry about. Things like rain should not be part of the equation until it has pooled together to form a stream or something and that people ought to be able to gather rain water on their own property.

I may have been born in Arizona and live in Utah now, but I grew up from the time I was 10 in Massachusetts and lived there (with a few absences) until my later 20s, and then again in New Hampshire for almost 5 years in my 30s. So I personally agree with the Eastern way of looking at this, which is that the land owner has the rights to the water on his property. But here in the West they have long established rules that say otherwise. The goal should be to make sure that those rights do not trample common sense use.

Belmont31R
02-19-10, 22:51
Except that these water rights laws have existed basically since "civilization" arrived in the West. This is not a new thing.

I think that the people who own the water rights would agree with you if you replace "land" above with "property." These people own the water rights and feel that people who set up cisterns are robbing them of their rightful property.

I personally think that the water rights should start once you get to a piece of water big enough to worry about. Things like rain should not be part of the equation until it has pooled together to form a stream or something and that people ought to be able to gather rain water on their own property.

I may have been born in Arizona and live in Utah now, but I grew up from the time I was 10 in Massachusetts and lived there (with a few absences) until my later 20s, and then again in New Hampshire for almost 5 years in my 30s. So I personally agree with the Eastern way of looking at this, which is that the land owner has the rights to the water on his property. But here in the West they have long established rules that say otherwise. The goal should be to make sure that those rights do not trample common sense use.



Well I agree with public waterways (lakes, rivers, large streams, etc) but rain water?


Just because its an old law doesn't mean its not an encroachment on people's land rights. I want to see these statues sued multiple times over for damage done by "their" rain water. I bet those laws get changed real quick...or the state will just create some absurd law where they are not liable for "their" property damage.

Ridge_Runner_5
02-20-10, 01:03
You know what would keep Denver from having a drought every single summer? Stop sending half our water to AZ...

People in the middle of the freaking desert can water their lawns whenever the hell they want. People in Denver can only water every 3rd day, and only at dawn or dusk.

Belmont31R
02-20-10, 01:06
You know what would keep Denver from having a drought every single summer? Stop sending half our water to AZ...

People in the middle of the freaking desert can water their lawns whenever the hell they want. People in Denver can only water every 3rd day, and only at dawn or dusk.





He have a similar issue here with our resovoir. The city wants the river flowing year round to capacity but if we get a little bit of a dry year we are suddenly on water restrictions but their scenic river keeps on a'flown. I've lived in areas that get less than a third as much rain, and don't ever recall water restrictions....:rolleyes:

Gramps
02-20-10, 01:27
Isn't she actually letting the water run into the ground via her garden at a later date? She is not actually keeping it.

bobvila
02-20-10, 04:46
I dont know what yards they are talking about but I have never seen a yard where the rain water runs off into a river unless it has a river running through it. This is the most insane thing I have ever heard of. I can understand not being able to divert waterways away from others, which I believe was the intent of the law, but this is stupid. The guy that says they account for every drop? Do they account for all the water that ends up causing floods and the damage they cause? If they are going to account for every drop and want to be paid for it they are responsible for the damage it causes.

chadbag
02-22-10, 00:30
I dont know what yards they are talking about but I have never seen a yard where the rain water runs off into a river unless it has a river running through it. This is the most insane thing I have ever heard of. I can understand not being able to divert waterways away from others, which I believe was the intent of the law, but this is stupid. The guy that says they account for every drop? Do they account for all the water that ends up causing floods and the damage they cause? If they are going to account for every drop and want to be paid for it they are responsible for the damage it causes.

I happen to agree with you.

But some water soaks down into the aquifer which is what they are worried about I think since I cannot just drill a well in states that have these water rights laws.

wake.joe
02-22-10, 00:43
So, what happens if they just start urinating on their property for the rest of their lives?

Is that someone else's property? Can they be tried for vandalism for ruining the fresh rain water by mixing it with urine?

bobvila
02-22-10, 01:12
I happen to agree with you.

But some water soaks down into the aquifer which is what they are worried about I think since I cannot just drill a well in states that have these water rights laws.

I live in the city limits and can not drill a well, but trapping rain water is actually acceptable here for watering lawns/gardens. If it was not permitted because they were concerned about rainwater reaching the aquifer, I would send them a bill anytime I watered my lawn since it is filling their aquifer.

tarkeg
02-22-10, 10:11
Having recently bought land in CO, my wife and I were pretty dumbfounded about this. However, I think this "no collecting rainwater" law was just overturned. Sorry, I can't find the email/news post we received stating this.

xfyrfiter
02-22-10, 15:58
Denver is on the wrong side of the mountains to send water to AZ . However TX ,KS, NE, and OK are all downstream. About 85 % of the western slope water ends up in Kalifornia via the Colorado river storage project. Four of the largest manmade water impoundments in the world. Navajo Lake, 19000 surface acres at 250 feet avg, Lake Powell, 2200 miles of shoreline,700 feet deep in places, Lake Mead, supplier to sin city ,Lake Havasau , Roosevelt lake, and a few others. almost all of this water is held in reserve for power plant hydroelectric use and the rest irrigates and supplies drinking water for LA and surrounds .Every drop that doesn't land in the rivers or lakes is spoken for ,so if you don't have senior water rights you cannot use runoff or drill a well. NM is in the same situation. I know this kind of rambles but it is hard to explain unless you live in the SW US.

Colo.TJ
02-22-10, 20:05
They're limiting farmers on how much water they can pull from their own wells. One farmer actually went to jail recently for not obeying the rules. They have also locked up well houses to keep farmers from drawing too much water.

Ridge_Runner_5
02-22-10, 20:07
Denver is on the wrong side of the mountains to send water to AZ . However TX ,KS, NE, and OK are all downstream. About 85 % of the western slope water ends up in Kalifornia via the Colorado river storage project. Four of the largest manmade water impoundments in the world. Navajo Lake, 19000 surface acres at 250 feet avg, Lake Powell, 2200 miles of shoreline,700 feet deep in places, Lake Mead, supplier to sin city ,Lake Havasau , Roosevelt lake, and a few others. almost all of this water is held in reserve for power plant hydroelectric use and the rest irrigates and supplies drinking water for LA and surrounds .Every drop that doesn't land in the rivers or lakes is spoken for ,so if you don't have senior water rights you cannot use runoff or drill a well. NM is in the same situation. I know this kind of rambles but it is hard to explain unless you live in the SW US.

McCain did a town hall meeting in Denver back in early 08...he even mentioned and thanked Coloradoans for the water supply..

FromMyColdDeadHand
02-22-10, 20:29
Don't ask what I do when I am on the other side of The Divide and I find an unused creek. Just adding to the flow.

Your welcome.

m4fun
02-22-10, 23:19
This really is rediculous. Wife has relatives in south western Wyoming and the deal with Denver trying to get Wyoming water??? Wow. More info there than I ever wanted to know...