Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: neighborhood, school)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by majormom

what are some thoughts on the water situation in the san luis valley having such a large aquifer underground? do the wells people are drilling on land in the saguache area go directly into the aquifer? what is the difference between senior & junior water rights in that area? & what are the differences between putting in a domestic or a household well??

The acquifer under the San Luis Valley is indeed a large one, but not inexhaustible. A number of years ago, the federal government drilled a number of large wells in the valley, and water from those wells is dumped into the Rio Grande to help satisfy downstream needs in New Mexico and Texas (part of a compact on that river, somewhat similar to the Colorado River Compact). In the years since those wells went on line, a lot of artesian (free flowing wells) in the Valley ceased freely flowing and now have to be pumped.

Around 20 years ago, another grandiose scheme by a private water developer was hatched to tap the acquifer and divert water to the Front Range (the company was called AWDI). A huge conflict ensued over that scheme. One of the major conflicts was whether or not the water underlying the San Luis Valley is "tributary" or not. "Tributary water" is water that is not part of an ancient storage acquifer, but water that enters an acquifer from rivers and streams on a regular basis. If water in an acquifer is determined to be tributary, then withdrawing it through wells has the potential to injure downstream users of water that hold rights on surface streamflows that may be fed from the acquifer.

Well-permitting in a non-tributary acquifer is different from the junior/senior conflicts that go on with surface water rights. I'd have to go back in my water law books to give a good explanation. Where junior and senior comes heavily into play is if water is tributary. Then, "first in use, first in right" can be a big deal. I would suggest that you talk to the Division Engineer for the District (3) that includes the San Luis Valley. That's a good source of information. I'm just scratching the surface here.

The Colorado State Engineer's website has a lot of information: Colo. Division of Water Resources .

[Siberia]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

....in today's Denver paper...The Denver Post - Water lifeline or dream?

Surf's Up!

s/Mike

With costs of $65-$95 MILLION in electricity to prime the pumps that transport water to 650,000 houses maximum, the cost, in ELECTRICITY ALONE, would be about $12 per MONTH, per home...assuming you always had the maximum number of households paying every year. Given that only 80% or less would always be active, costs could be higher.

On top of that, add on water costs, pipeline recoup costs, pipeline fixes (drunk with a rifle, etc), etc, etc, etc...the costs could be $50-$100 bucks a month easily...just to get something that most get out of ground wells for virtually free.

Siberia

P.S. The huge estimated electric usage cost range itself tells me they have no clue how expensive it will ulitmately be...

P.S.S. Hey look on the bright side, bird flu or another med resistant virus could ultimately solve the entire water crisis for the entire globe over the next decade. Mother nature tends to bring things back into balance, by force unfortunately...

[Siberia]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

It's simple. Under Colorado law, you don't "own" the surface water that rises or passes through your property.

Most states are that way. I once had a DNR guy come onto my private property and threaten to give me "a ticket" for improper use of a Jet ski on my own private body of water. Now there is an entry gate...as he was simply an ass about the entire situation, a guy making $12,000 per year who definately had a huge chip on his shoulder...

The law states the states own your surface water... so not only do you NOT own your house (each of us pay government property tax to rent our homes each year), you don't even own the mud holes on your property either.

What next, the air we breathe...LOL

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Siberia

Most states are that way. I once had a DNR guy come onto my private property and threaten to give me "a ticket" for improper use of a Jet ski on my own private body of water. Now there is an entry gate...as he was simply an ass about the entire situation, a guy making $12,000 per year who definately had a huge chip on his shoulder...

The law states the states own your surface water... so not only do you NOT own your house (each of us pay government property tax to rent our homes each year), you don't even own the mud holes on your property either.

What next, the air we breathe...LOL

Actually, most states are "riparian" water law states--that is, the landowner can use the water that rises (or, in some cases, runs through) his or her property. Most of the western states are not "riparian" water law states and that is not the case.

Also, not to put to fine a point on it, but all private land rights in the United States eminate originally from the federal government--it was the federal government that granted rights to individuals to own land through the land patent process. Starting with that, there were certain land rights that the federal government reserved unto itself, and/or to state and local government--things like police powers (zoning being an example), taxation, and escheat. I'm not a lawyer, but property law is an interesting field to study. Contrary to some people's opinion, land property ownership rights in the U.S. are not absolute, and never have been--weren't even comtemplated to be that by the founding fathers.

[b.adams]

Oil is also limited and running out ... I'm still using gasoline, still driving

Coal is also limited and running out ... we all use it for electricity generation.

Yes, the water is limited, contentious and wasted ... but we still have yards

This is educational to some, but what should I actually do that can really make a difference?

THe truth is -- humans are using the resources of the earth, period. But we also don't understand a lot and have proven to be very innovative at finding alternatives when we need to. And we will ...

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by b.adams

Oil is also limited and running out ... I'm still using gasoline, still driving

Coal is also limited and running out ... we all use it for electricity generation.

Yes, the water is limited, contentious and wasted ... but we still have yards

This is educational to some, but what should I actually do that can really make a difference?

THe truth is -- humans are using the resources of the earth, period. But we also don't understand a lot and have proven to be very innovative at finding alternatives when we need to. And we will ...

You must adhere to the economist Lord John Maynard Keynes' oft-quoted opine, "In the long run, WE'RE ALL DEAD." Works fine for us, probably not so well for those who are going to inherit this place we call home.

I tend to like the quote (from an unknown source) that a friend of mine (a quite successful and well-off business person) had posted on the front door of his relatively modest home, "Live simply, so that those who follow us can simply live."

[DOUBLE H]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

You must adhere to the economist Lord John Maynard Keynes' oft-quoted opine, "In the long run, WE'RE ALL DEAD." Works fine for us, probably not so well for those who are going to inherit this place we call home.

I tend to like the quote (from an unknown source) that a friend of mine (a quite successful and well-off business person) had posted on the front door of his relatively modest home, "Live simply, so that those who follow us can simply live."

Great quote! Hope all the greedmongers take heed! DBL H

[gcoolidge]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

. . . all private land rights in the United States eminate originally from the federal government . . .

Doesn't this only apply to land that wasn't owned by someone? That would be a big difference. I know it was not your intent, but one could infer from your statement that the U.S. government owned all the land in the U.S. and just divvied it out. That may have been the case with a lot of the land in Colorado (but not all of it). Further east, not so much.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by gcoolidge

Doesn't this only apply to land that wasn't owned by someone? That would be a big difference. I know it was not your intent, but one could infer from your statement that the U.S. government owned all the land in the U.S. and just divvied it out. That may have been the case with a lot of the land in Colorado (but not all of it). Further east, not so much.

The U.S. government, when areas became part of the U.S., would often recognize land ownership that predated the area becoming part of the country. In this end of the country, a good example was many of the Spanish Land Grants made in New Mexico and southern Colorado before they were part of the U.S. Even then, the recognition of "ownership" of the land prior to U.S. soverignty over it was not automatic and there are still court cases being litigated today about the chain of title to lands in some of the Spanish Land Grants. In most areas of the Rocky Mountain West, the original General Land Office surveys and patent books are considered the beginning of the chain of title for most lands. I know--I've spent a lot of time with my nose stuck in them, researching chains of title, beginning there and working forward.

[gcoolidge]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

The U.S. government, when areas became part of the U.S., would often recognize land ownership that predated the area becoming part of the country. In this end of the country, a good example was many of the Spanish Land Grants made in New Mexico and southern Colorado before they were part of the U.S. Even then, the recognition of "ownership" of the land prior to U.S. soverignty over it was not automatic and there are still court cases being litigated today about the chain of title to lands in some of the Spanish Land Grants. In most areas of the Rocky Mountain West, the original General Land Office surveys and patent books are considered the beginning of the chain of title for most lands. I know--I've spent a lot of time with my nose stuck in them, researching chains of title, beginning there and working forward.

You said, ". . . all private land rights in the United States eminate originally from the federal government . . ."
Can you see why your statement would raise a red flag? I don't think it's true.