Where did the water go?

Are people smarter than animals....some say "yes." But if you live in a desert like climate and think you deserve water to be diverted into your state...then that's just bad logic (aka stupid). Here's a tip: don't move in to a desert climate. The animals figured that out millions of years ago. I love ducks and I love boats. So, I live in the great lakes state. Low water is still better than no water;)
 
The "ownership" of Colorado river water was roughly decided years ago (1922 I think). It is called the Colorado River Compact. It divides water up between the states that surround the river. The "pay up" for California is to abide by the River Compact and all newer agreements. This means in general less Colorado river water may be used in Cali. So the "pay up" will mean water conservation and other means (storage of surpluses in wet years) to meet the compacts.

Ownership of water is roughly based upon old mining law. In Utah this means that water is held by the state until the water is filed upon for use by an individual or corporation. This is also based upon the concept of best use such as ag or municipal use, wildife have traditionally been over looked as a best use. That is slowly changing and at times wildlife is allowed a best use. In general the individual States retain ownership of water for the benefit of the people at large even though a water right has been allocated water to an individual or other entity.


This is just in general, each state plays its own funny games with water law.

As for the desert living people being "stupid" ummm well no comment,,,I take the 5th,,,HAHA!!

Matt
 
I am confused, the "pay up" you state is for CA to comply with the compact (looks like it was renegotiated and agreed upon in 07-08). CA is the last recipient of water in the compact - are they supposed to ship it back up because other states did not take their allocation or have the means/infrastructure to capture it? Should CA or some of the down-river states be responsible for shipping the water back up to the origination point? Use less of less water in CA so we send more to Mexico - this would be "paying up"?

To make this duck related I can count a handful of Calif//NV based state and federal refuges benefiting from the other states allowing allocations to flow through on the Colorado – a good thing
 
I know where your water is... It's been falling on those of us who live along the mid-atlantic. It seems like it rains an inch or two every other day. Fields are so flooded that there are still a lot of soybean fields yet to be cut. I complained about the drought for the last four or five years - but I'm officially eating my words.
 
Just to give an idea of how much water we are talking about...lowering the Great Lakes by two feet is equal to almost 40 TRILLION gallons of water.

Now the following is simply anecdotal information but I understand that doctors out west recommend that their patients drink 8 glasses of water a day to prevent colds.... while here in Michigan, SIX glasses are the norm.

Signs of government intervention? You tell me.
 
Who builds a city in the middle of a desert anyways? And second isn't a giant earth quake going to break Cali off soon anyways? We wouldn't have to worry about them anymore then?
 
Derek

No they can't ship it back,,,,,I am sure the upper basin states wish they could.....

The pay up is to abide by the all old and new agreements and implement water use practices so that Cali water users can comply. It is not going to be easy or cheap to comply.

Matt
 
How do you comply, CA is the last on the flow - they get what is left over, what comes through after it has flowed through all of the other compact states. Are they supposed to say " I will take my 8 glasses and let the rest flow through - because poor little Utah is feeling left out that they only took 3 glasses" and screw the need that maybe we need to take 9 glasses because we have the need and its there to be used. Why comply and let it flow through to what Mexico? Sure this enters a new debate on conservation of use, but not "ownership" of water. We could debate the justifiable use of a mine in Utah or a golf course in Nevada or an orange grove in CA and spin all kinds of economic and social views/opinions.

I am thirsty and headed down the hall and will be enjoying 16 ozs of water instead of the recommended 8 because I want my take and don’t want anyone in S. CA getting more than their allotment. Have a safe duck season.
 
Actually Mexico is last, and has participated in negotiations for X amount of water.....

The compact also referenced Mexico's right to Colorado River water. In 1944, the United States signed a water treaty in which it agreed to deliver an annual quantity of 1.5 MAFY to Mexico.

Water that was going to Cali is now going to go to Vegas, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado as per the compact and other agreements. Utah for example has proposed building a pipeline from Lake Powell to St George....I have seen the proposals and preliminary concept documents...

Cali was using water that was allocated else where and was not being used by the participants...that is coming to an end.

One interesting side note on all this ----In most water years there is not enough water in the Colorado Basin to supply all allocations in the compact, or a simple way to put it-----There is not enough to go around. The amount of water available was over estimated in 1922

Matt
 
just because you dont see the water, and nobody you know you see the water... yada yada. We had plenty of ya'lls water this year... the wettest june, july, aug, sept, and oct on record here. Lots of people had places there beans never took a stand because it was so wet, but it didnt matter the wet had made bumper yields... until we had 16 inches of rain in october and a lot of those beans rotted in the field.

i thought the ice was melting and the coasts where moving inland? now im all confused. travis
 
I'm with Travis. I figured most of it went up, but I knew it had to come down somewhere. The only problem is that the water has been low for years and it must have gone up then down a lot of times before it hit those beans in Travis' neighborhood.

Now I have heard the theories about snowcover inhibiting evaporation (off the ice) thus making the levels rise. I have heard the Western "water stealing" theories that have come to light above. I have to admit, I have not heard about the Mecosta water bottlers Lou.

But I dont think we have a winner yet.
 
Jan-Petter1.jpg


Evidence has just been uncovered that water from around the world is being sucked up by aliens into a large vortex called a white hole.

Tim
 


I have to admit, I have not heard about the Mecosta water bottlers Lou.

But I dont think we have a winner yet.
Click to expand...
Scott,
Here's the link to info on the mecosta deal....up near Big Rapids.
Lou
www.stopnestlewaters.org/communities/mecosta-county-mi


Mecosta County, Michigan, lies at the center of a water issue that is only beginning to be heard in the bottled water debate: should a multinational be allowed to privatize a public resource?
When Nestle announced plans to build a water bottling plant in Mecosta in 2000, some residents were alarmed.
And – it turns out – with good cause.
While Neste trumpets its environmentally friendly ethic – and says it would never harm an aquifer – that’s exactly what they did in Mecosta.
The Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) sued, and after reviewing the damage done to the watershed by Nestle’s excessive withdrawals, a judge ordered Nestle to cease pumping immediately.
When forced to comply, Nestle worked out a deal where they halved their pumping rate, but in classic fashion, they continued their litigation while looking for new sources of water.
The Michigan Department of Enviornmental Quality (DEQ) – the same folks who happily permitted the first damaging water extraction – recently permitted yet another Nestle extraction well, and this despite flawed data.
Why is this significant?
It’s important to note that Nestle – despite losing several battles – didn’t lose the war. In fact, their water bottling capacity at their Mecosta County plant is now almost exactly what they initially targeted.
In other words, through lawsuits and heavy-duty lobbying designed to weaken water protection rules, they got what they wanted – despite adverse legal decisions and public opposition.
They’re also attempting to increase their allowable pumping levels past the injunction levels, and the MCWC are being forced to fight them again in court (a battle which Nestle lost, and badly)
That’s a lesson other rural towns would be wise to heed.
UPDATES
Nestle lost its battle to raise its pumping levels, settling on lower rates on the first day the court case began. It’s a big victory for the MCWC and water warriors everywhere!
To read a detailed examination of exactly what happened in Mecosta County, MI, read our summary post and environmental attorney Jim Olson’s lengthy article here
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top