Oil giants have “cornered the market” on Western Slope water rights, study says

[bananas]

Source: Colorado Independent

Six energy companies with plans for large-scale oil shale development on the Western Slope, led by ExxonMobil and Shell, have “cornered the market” on water in northwestern Colorado.

The study by Boulder-based Western Resource Advocates concludes that the oil shale activity envisioned by energy companies and some state and federal lawmakers would consume as much water as the entire Denver metro area on an annual basis.

The report details more than 200 water rights held by the companies, totaling 7.2 million acre-feet in diversions and 2 million acre-feet in water storage rights in the

<snip>

Not included in the WRA report is the bid by Shell to obtain extensive rights in the Yampa River basin, and other reports have concluded full-scale commercial oil shale production is not compatible with current and future water needs for sustained residential growth. The WRA study, though, is the first to detail the extent of energy company water rights.

<snip>

Read more: http://coloradoindependent.com/24667/oil-giants-have-cornered-the-market-on-western-slope-water-rights-study-says

[UpInArms]

1. water is really not supposed to be owned like that

...

[enlightenment]

6. It's not ownership, per se.

It's based on the doctrine of prior appropriation, which is the basis for most water law in the western US. The eastern states, with their much higher percentage of rainfall and watersheds, tends to use the older standard of riparian rights, which argues that any individual may use as much water from a water source on their property as they want (take it from the stream that runs through the land, in other words) as long as they replace it so that the next person 'in line' (further down the stream) has the same ability. "Replace", of course, relies upon there being enough water to do so.

Prior appropriation is a completely different concept that is - VERY rudely - 'first come, first serve' (there's a lot more to it than that, of course). It it established on the idea of 'beneficial' use; if the person/group claiming the right can show that they will use the water in a beneficial fashion, (growing crops is more beneficial than building a water slide, for example)they can claim as much as they want - even if the next person in line winds up with none. It was developed as a response to the aridity of the west.

My explanation is mostly crap and I'm sure a water rights expert will come along and put me in my place . . . so here's a link and a brief snip from the page to help clarify the concept.

Doctrine of Prior Appropriation
The use of water in many of the states in the western U.S. is governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, also known as the "Colorado Doctrine" of water law. The essence of the doctrine of prior appropriation is that, while no one may own the water in a stream, all persons, corporations, and municipalities have the right to use the water for beneficial purposes. The allocation of water rests upon the fundamental maxim "first in time, first in right." The first person to use water (called a "senior appropriator") acquires the right (called a "priority") to its future use as against later users (called "junior appropriators"). In order to assure protection of senior water right priorities and to maximize the use of this scarce and valuable resource, many states have adopted detailed schemes for the determination and administration of water rights. These state regimens define to a large extent just what a water right is.
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241492.html

It may not be the best solution, but it's what the west uses - and that's how these corporations are able to claim so much (I'm sure they have a lot of pretty language explaining why oil shale manufacture is beneficial).


*eta: missing word

[UpInArms]

8. thanks for the clarification

it helped me to understand their claims

:hi:

(edited for embarrassing typo) :blush:

[enlightenment]

9. You're welcome.

I find the topic fascinating, but I know I'm poorly versed in it - still, I teach history, including Nevada history, so I've learned a little bit about it.

I tell my students that if they want to have a career with sure employment, they should become water rights lawyers. It's a never-ending battle in the West!

[Robb]

11. It's an old joke here in CO

...Whiskey's for drinkin' over, water's for fightin' over. :)

[christx30]

15. It is my understanding

that in colorado you are not even allowed to have anything on your property that you can use to catch rain in if you want to use it to water your garden, for example. Even if it comes off your roof, you have to let it go and buy it from them by using the water from your hose.
I think that's a weird law that needs to go the way of the dodo.

[Robb]

17. You're correct

The argument is that you're "robbing" downstream users who expect that downspout water to run into their ditches and what-not.

Even more anachronistic, if you manage to wrangle yourself use of that water -- which can be done in rural areas with much effort -- you must replenish what you take, and prove you are doing so. In other words, if you obtain permission to collect water in a pond, you must then pump municipal water into the local irrigation ditch at the same rate you fill the pond. And hire the appropriate engineers and lawyers to produce a report saying you have replenished the water.

It's all a bit daffy. :)

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. Bolivia? or Brazil ? passed same law. People could not use their rainwater.

big stink ensued.
But it was all aboutthe control the population, just as Amerika let Montsano go into Iraq and outlaw Iraqi seed.
Imagine that...thousands of years of seed from the cradle of civilizaton was outlawed and Iraqi farmers forced to buy GM seed.
Now it is our turn to experience the Disaster Capitalism that has been perfected via our take- over of "3rd world" countries.

[aquart]

2. It's time to put a stop to that. Like immediately.

Water "rights", my ass.

[NickB79]

3. This is the natural conclusion of demands to produce more oil domestically

The easy oil is mostly gone, so any domestic oil increases must come from hard-to-develop sites. Oil shale is the largest of these, and oil shale mining is inherently water-intensive.

The blaringly obvious answer is to develop alternative energy sources that don't depend on either finite fossil fuels or massive amounts of water.

[dipsydoodle]

4. would consume as much water ........

I'd say that's an understatement.

Wouldn't do Mexico a whole of good either.

Heavily used Colorado River gives last drops to Mexican farm fields

Fully 1,450 miles long, the Colorado stretches from its headwaters in the Never Summer Wilderness Mountains of Colorado to the Gulf of California in Mexico. By the time it reaches its last, brief stretch in Mexico, 90 percent of its normal flow has been drained away by U.S. cities and farms.

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/7heause6.html

[acmavm]

5. Sheesh! Oil companies in control of the water. I cannot think of a

dirtier bunch of thugs. Look at what they do to us over oil/gas.

They'll use ever last drop turning a profit for themselves. This bunch is as evil as the Wall Street garbage.

Water will be the biggest issue in the coming years.

[vinylsolution]

7. And who helped the oil companies do all this?

Ken Salazar.

[donheld]

22. Do you have proof?

[generalbetrayus]

24. I don't especially care for Salazar (DINO), either.

But when he was in Colorado, he wasn't at all a tool of the oil companies when it came to oil shale, and fought the Bush Administration on its efforts to speed up oil shale development in Western Colorado. It's all hot air, anyway - oil shale busted in the 20s, the 80s, and will continue to bust. "Economically viable oil shale production" belongs in the same category as "clean coal".

[glinda]

10. Actually....don't Native Americans own the water but have never acted upon it?

I seem to recall that they have strong water rights in many States. Perhaps they should be stepping up to the plate and exert some muscle. I could be wrong but my husband used to teach Indian History/Law/ etc.... and there may be something, an old Law, that never was changed.....

[Jefferson23]

12. This is just not good, not at all.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. I read recently that T. Boone Pickens' wind farms are also about controlliing the water rights

in the area.
That part of his plan was supposed to be hush-hush.

[EFerrari]

16. I don't understand it but I've read that here before on DU. n/t

[illuminaughty]

25. Now that makes sense. I knew there had to be another motive

besides his "concern" for our dependency on foreign oil.

[pattmarty]

14. Nationalize the motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!

[irislake]

18. This is very bad news!

I feel sick. Water is the new oil.
Thank God we have Maud Barlow in Canada leading the worldwide fight against privatizing and for profit water.

You Americans had better act quickly to protect water as a basic human right. Big oil and the corporations are much more powerful in the U.S and your mainstream media will side with them. You had better look sharp before they put one over on you.

South American countries are way ahead of you when it comes to protecting their right to water.

God this is bad news! You had better start organizing to fight the privatizing of resources that should belong to you.

And didn`t George W. Bush buy up thousands of acres of land in Paraguay or somewhere cuz it has lotsa water. Those vultures are way ahead of you. Look sharp!

[antimatter98]

19. If you love Exxon now, wait until they sell your water to you. n/t

[randr]

20. Living here in Western Colorado, we are extremely concerned

Way back when the Home Land Security Act first emerged I recall reading about a provision that declared areas of the country as "sacrifice zones". Western Colorado and Eastern Utah were included.
Maybe someone with more expertise than I could do a little digging and see if my memory is correct.

[ConcernedCanuk]

21. So Water Wars have begun . . .

.
.
.

was it Bechtel that took over water in Latin or South America that charged people for collecting rainwater, or using their own wells?

And the USA is already doing this in one or more states?

WOW

can't collect rainwater

fucking amazing . . .

humans suck . .

[pleah]

23. That ain't the only one going on,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXYcv9RnGU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0AIRZCrTP8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqLT4L6Aieg

The seed wars have begun, too.

[Zorra]

27. First...we kill all the big oil companies. nt