[bayview6]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Actually there is no distinction in water law between surface and subsurface water...basically all the same law and principles. Water law seldom gets to court. The actually decisions are made by the State Engineer and are generally not appealable. And the State Engineer basically answers to nobody...the governor can fire him but not overrule him.

The State Engineer is heavlily embedded in the Constitution.

The recent SNWA case got into court based upon whether the State Engineer was following the procedure in the statutes...he clearly wasn't. But the Supreme Court basically punted and said do it over. The rub of course dealt with timing. It required that things be resolved in time periods that could not posslbiy be met and which were ignored.

Property rights can be overcome by eminent domain. But then you have to pay the property owner. And that is where all the well problems come from. If for instance you wish to protect the Pahrump aquifer you will likely have to shed half the users. As you do this you make their land pretty much worthless. So sure the State can protect the aguifer...all you need is couple of hundred million dollars to pay off the owners.

And in general the northern counties play hell trumping Clark. It ain't gonna happen. So the north can sputter and carry on but they lack any control. If anything limits the rights of southern Nevada it will be the discussions with Utah.

Any of those northern counties' aquifers under federal land?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by bayview6

Any of those northern counties' aquifers under federal land?

Only an issue if they are completely under federal land. Then you would have to get permission to drill.

Otherwise you can take the water from the whole area if you have a place to drill from. It is who files for the water first...not who owns the land above it.

Practically the hydrology will require multiple wells across sizable areas. But theoretically any one well can take it all.

Note that there are all sorts of limitations and rules to this stuff. You are not supposed to screw up your neighbors well or natural springs. However the practical sometime intervenes as it can be very difficult to prove causality.

[frischee112]

Well limiting growth is a very unlikely factor. That would hurt real estate marketsand impede economic growth pretty badly. You're not understand that you can't stop the population growth. You can't do that. You have to meet demand instead.

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Only an issue if they are completely under federal land. Then you would have to get permission to drill.

Otherwise you can take the water from the whole area if you have a place to drill from. It is who files for the water first...not who owns the land above it.

Practically the hydrology will require multiple wells across sizable areas. But theoretically any one well can take it all.

Note that there are all sorts of limitations and rules to this stuff. You are not supposed to screw up your neighbors well or natural springs. However the practical sometime intervenes as it can be very difficult to prove causality.

What about the federal laws that protect endangered species?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by bayview6

What about the federal laws that protect endangered species?

That will probably be the most interesting problem in some of the areas. Note though it is a two edged sword. If SNWA can't pump it to protect some small fish then the locals can't pump it either.

So the endangered species thing could screw up the locals. Might even end up making them quit using some of their existing wells.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by jhiker1o

... heck even Mexico receives far more on allocation of the Colorado River...

Let's make a trade with Mexico. They give us their unemployed peasants, we give them our water. Oh wait...

[SportyandMisty]

I'd love to see a way to pump water from the perpetually flooded Mid-West to Las Vegas. Every spring, it seems, the Mid-West flood basins are, well, flooded.

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by olecapt

That will probably be the most interesting problem in some of the areas. Note though it is a two edged sword. If SNWA can't pump it to protect some small fish then the locals can't pump it either.

So the endangered species thing could screw up the locals. Might even end up making them quit using some of their existing wells.

Really?? The locals are pumping that much water? Doesn't that go back to the question of inter-basin transfers? Most (50%+) of the water that the locals pumps goes back to the aquifer, doesn't it?

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by frischee112

Well limiting growth is a very unlikely factor. That would hurt real estate marketsand impede economic growth pretty badly. You're not understand that you can't stop the population growth. You can't do that. You have to meet demand instead.

Actually, it would improve the real estate market and boost economic growth.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by bayview6

Really?? The locals are pumping that much water? Doesn't that go back to the question of inter-basin transfers? Most (50%+) of the water that the locals pumps goes back to the aquifer, doesn't it?

Depends on what they are using it for and the nature of the aquifer. Most agricultural water ends up evaporated. In Las Vegas virtually none of the waste water goes to the aquifer. Gets trapped in a shallow aquifer and run to the Colorado.

Any pumping of an aquifer which lowers its pressure head can effect springs. That is what happened to the river here. We pumped enough water to lower the head below ground killing the springs and the river.