Who owns Colorado's rainwater? (for real)

[ensho]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-contested-rainwater18-2009mar18,0,5585599.story


Environmentalists and others like to gather it in containers for use in drier times. But state law says it belongs to those who bought the rights to waterways.


Reporting from 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.

-snip-

"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.

-snip-

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."
-snip-
------------------------------


water Barons cannot be allowed to own 'rain water'!

[liberal N proud]

1. GOD

[msongs]

2. corporate control of water. nice nt

[TwilightGardener]

3. I own some land in CO, and if/when I build there, I'll put in

a little underground cistern. Fuck them. You can claim the gullies and ditches, but you're not claiming my rooftop raindrops.

[kestrel91316]

10. You better plan on doing it on the sly. If anybody gets wind of your

cistern, you better have receipts showing you paid for every drop of water in the thing. Seriously.

It's a totally fucked-up system, I know, but that's apparently the way it is. I love CO, but I will NEVER return there as long as this law exists. When I retire, my humble abode WILL have rainwater harvesting capabilities, and I won't live anywhere that I can't do it legally.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Oh, absolutely. I read up on water law there (at least in how it relates

to average homeowners), I know it's serious bidness. It's not like I'm planning to divert runoff or build a retention pond or anything like that--but if it touches and rolls down my roof, it's mine. What's next, am I not allowed to grow plants, or grass, because they might grab the raindrops? Maybe Colorado should just make a law requiring all non-entitled persons to pave over their land so as not to allow the rain to sink into the soil of the unworthy.

[kestrel91316]

22. I think the coming years will see enforcement of this particular

bit of legislative nonsense be given a very low priority. In the grand scheme of things, you know.

There won't be money to enforce idiotic laws like this.

[ddeclue]

45. DUZY Alert! That's good!

[MADem]

4. Wow, shitty state--not enough oxygen, not enough water.

They can keep it. Putzes.

Seriously, that shit needs fixing. NOW.

Next thing you know, they'll be selling rights to the sun, and telling people they can't put solar panels on their roofs unless the proceeds go to energy barons.

[BadgerKid]

9. Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun

I will do the next best thing...block it out!

[MADem]

13. Ewwwwwwwwwwww ..... yyyyyyeeeeeeeeessssssssssssss!

(rubs hands together with mendacious glee).....

[liberal N proud]

18. If someone can figure out a way to charge for having solar panels

You can bet they will

[GentryDixon]

51. Many states have this provision.

North Carolina was threatening fines on people two summers ago for capturing rain water, citing the very argument Colorado is using.

[LaurenG]

5. Geez - people need to learn to share!

Environmentalists and others like to gather it in containers for use in drier times. But state law says it belongs to those who bought the rights to waterways. Argh - The wildlife on the land might drink it before it gets to the "waterways" maybe they'll have to get rid of them. :sarcasm:

[TwilightGardener]

6. Actually, it doesn't even necessarily GET to waterways in very sandy soil, like

my property consists of--it goes to (eventually) recharge the aquifer, which I am allowed to tap with a well. So, I either collect it now, or wait a hundred years for each raindrop to make it down through many hundreds of feet of soil, gravel and rock to draw it up.

[Democrats_win]

7. Relax. It's just noise. It never rains in Colorado.

The real water issue in Colorado involves farmers along the Platte River north of Denver. The water is there but they can't use it. The state legislature needs to do something about that. This is something that matters because they grow our food. They are the real heroes of Colorado. They've been growing our food for over 50 years. This is where action is needed. Please, don't get involved in this foolishness of rain water until after you solve the real water problem.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Nebraska has some rights in regard to Platte River water, too--that

may be a reason why it can't all be drawn off in eastern CO. Just sayin'.

[acmavm]

11. Gee, could it be because the land that the aquifers are in is

owned by the oil companies? And they want to use it to filter oil out of sand.

[eleny]

12. Link?

[acmavm]

19. I'll find it. It was a story here the other day. (Can't find DU link, here's story)

<snip>

Oil Giants Have Cornered the Market on the Western Slope Water Rights Study Says

Oil and gas drilling near the Roan Plateau. (Photo/Ecoflight.info)
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 Colorado and White river basins.

“Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado,” produced by the environmental group and funded in part by the Aspen Skiing Co., says that new oil shale energy boom like the one that went bust in the 1980s will come at the expense of agriculture and continued residential growth on the Front Range and in the state’s mountain towns because of a lack of water
-MORE-

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

Oil Cos. Buy Rights to Access Water Before Communities & Farmers
In preparation for future oil shale mining projects near the Rocky Mountains, six oil companies have gained rights to billions of gallons of water in the American West, potentially jeopardizing water supplies throughout the region, according to a new report by Western Resource Advocates , an environmental group. It is still preliminary to speculate on the implications of the findings, but many are concerned that if the companies put their rights to use, water will be shifted away from agriculture and community use.

Using public records, the report examines more than 200 water rights held by six energy companies, including Shell and ExxonMobil, which, it is estimated, are collectively entitled to divert at least 6.5 billion gallons of water from rivers in western Colorado, as well as almost 2 million acre-feet of water from the state’s reservoirs, which is enough to supply the Denver metro area for six years. Shale oil production is a water-intensive process: up to five barrels of water are consumed for every barrel of oil produced. This means that projects producing 1.55 million barrels of oil per day would require 378,000 acre-feet of water each year, compared to the Denver metro area’s consumption, which is less than 300,000 acre feet. Should oil shale production hit full stride in the next 15 to 20 years — something the White House under President George W. Bush tried to accelerate by opening up 2 million acres controlled by the Bureau of Land Management to leasing and approving royalty rates and leasing rules — there will be a major political battle over water rights .

Extracting oil from shale is still an experimental process, facing major technological, environmental and regulatory hurdles, and is considerably more expensive than conventional drilling , and the report has reignited an ongoing public debate over what the impacts of oil shale mining will be on nearby communities and the environment. Last September, the mayors of 11 mountain communities in Colorado wrote a joint letter to publicly express concern about “significant impacts on our community infrastructure, environment, and quality of life” from the development of oil shale…. “There has also been little evaluation of the impact these technologies and processes will have on local communities or the regional air and water resources” , they wrote.
-MORE-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/03/20/oil-cos-buy-rights-to-access-water-before-communities-farmers/
______________________________________________
Oil-shale plans create ripple
Companies accrue more than 250 water rights on Western Slope for energy development
By Mark Jaffe
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/19/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT
Updated: 03/19/2009 12:40:20 AM MDT


Oil companies have amassed more than 250 water rights for oil-shale development, giving them a key share of the flow of the Colorado River and the White River, according to a Western Resource Advocates study.

Many of the water rights are also more senior than those held by Front Range water suppliers, and that could hamper plans to bring more water over the mountains for towns and cities, the study said.

"Large-scale oil-shale development could create problems for us and other users," said Denver Water manager Chips Barry.

Six oil companies have filed for 7.2 million acre-feet of water rights on the Colorado and White rivers — equal to the entire allocation for the Upper Colorado River Basin.

The companies also control 104 agricultural irrigation ditch companies in the region, the Boulder-based environmental law center found.

Oil companies "have cornered the market" on the Western Slope water rights, said Karin Sheldon, Western Resource Advocates executive director.
-MORE-

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11945056

[eleny]

20. Yes, they need water to extract oil from the shale

I'm not so sure that this will all go forward. There's so much local opposition and Secy Salazar is not a fan, either.

With oil prices so low and the shale oil so costly to extract, there's a lot going against the oil companies on this endeavor - thank goodness. When oil prices plummeted in the 1980s, Colorado's oil shale development literally evaporated. Our economy was in the toilet.

It's foolhardy to go back to this with petroleum prices so volatile. Americans are doing a good job conserving oil and driving down the prices. Pulling the rug out from under the petro corporations.

Thanks for finding that article. At first I didn't know what you meant about getting oil out of the sand. Now I know you meant shale.

[acmavm]

49. Sorry, I was in a hurry and I explained myself poorly. I have been known

to do that.

[eleny]

50. You aren't alone! And thanks again for posting the articles for me

:hi:

[winyanstaz]

14. And now corporations own the Creators rainwater too?

This is insane people. Very soon you will have to pay for every breath and every drink and every bite. Oops too late..we are almost there already.
Now many more might start understanding why Native Americans are against anyone owning the earth.
It doesn't belong to the rich, it belongs to all of the Creator's children, ALL of the two-legged, four-legged, many legged, the ones that creep upon the earth, burrow in the earth, swim in the waters or fly the heavens.
The Earth is the mother of us all and it also belongs to the unborn.
When people build by the waters...it blocks all the rest of the world from the use of that water and it pollutes the water.
This so called civilization we have going here is unsustainable and it is broken.
When you look upon the world you live in as a unfeeling and dead thing that is yours to exploit, rape and pollute, you are committing suicide.
To claim the very rain that falls from the heaven is arrogance indeed.

[dkofos]

16. Romer has the power to change the rules. Will he??

[alfredo]

17. Bechtel tried that in Bolivia and got run out of the country by angry citizens.

[NorthernSpy]

25. that was a good day

The people took back what was theirs in common.

[KamaAina]

26. Guess who else used to be big in private water??

That's right, Enron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azurix

Azurix Corp. was the water services division of Enron Corporation, formed by purchasing Wessex Water in 1998. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, United States, Azurix was part-floated on the NYSE stock exchange in June 1999, with Enron retaining 35% ownership. The company owned and operated facilities in North America (mainly Canada), Europe, and South America....

It is known in particular for operating in Argentina, where in June 1999 it bid $438m to win a 30-year concession covering two of the three regions of the Buenos Aires Province (excluding the Buenos Aires city concession, which is run by Suez). In October 2001, Azurix announced it would withdraw from the contract as of January 2002, accusing the regional government of "serious breaches", and later filed a compensation claim with the ICSID (Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/01/12)). The concession was terminated in March 2002; in 2006 the ICSID awarded Azurix $156m in compensation (substantially less than the $620m Azurix originally claimed).

[alfredo]

27. RWE owns our water here in Lexington.

[derby378]

41. But not before gov't troops shot Victor Hugo Daza to death

Killed because he dared to insist that water is not a commodity.

Hope we're not going to see the same thing in Colorado.

[alfredo]

42. Next thing you know, they will charge you for inhaling the humidity in the

air. Some of it evaporated from the streams and yards.

[eleny]

21. We're on an irrigation ditch with senior rights going back to 1927

If people upstream starting at St. Mary's Glacier helped themselves to a cistern each, we'd never get a drop way down here in Lakewood.

Water issues in Colorado are not just about what's happening on the Slope. Here on the east side, the little guys also benefit from this law.

As I said to someone else later in this thread, I don't think the oil shale endeavors are going to pan out with petroleum prices low again. But I hope something can be done to return water rights for agriculture which is more important, imo.

[MattBaggins]

28. That is not the problem

If each of those people took a cistern full of water and paid some third party for it; you would still have no water. It's about a company claiming that the drops falling from the sky are theirs.

[eleny]

30. They wouldn't be able to take water if their rights were younger than ours

How much do you understand about water rights here in Colorado?

[MattBaggins]

33. Still not the issue

That is a matter to be handled as a municipality between you and your neighbors in a fair and equitable manner. A private company telling folks they can't collect water from their roof tops is bull shit.

[eleny]

34. That's not how our irrigation water is governed

There's no municipality involved. There is no "matter to be handled... etc etc..." as you assert. Water is bought and sold according to Colorado water laws detailed in our state's constitution. "Equitable" isn't a criteria.

Any laws regarding water have to meet constitutionality. If a current law is overturned it will be because it hasn't met this requirement. Not because you think it's bull shit.

[MattBaggins]

35. There is no local control at all?

So if you live down stream of a McMansion development and your house was there first, who gets the water?

Would you rather call out some old lady trying to water her garden instead of big companies trying to grab billions of gallons.

[Robb]

36. Water rights in Colorado are not a matter of topography

The simple version is "first in time, first in line."

Asserting water rights is a matter of who has the oldest, e.g. "senior" rights, not who is necessarily upstream or downstream. In practice it is more complicated than that, but this is the basic idea.

[eleny]

38. Decades ago, I spent time reading litigation cases at the library

I'll never forget one case about two farmers who were having a personal dispute about something unrelated to water. So the farmer upstream put up a barrier that kept the second farmer from getting access to his water. Farmer #2 took farmer #1 to court and of course he won the case.

Many of the cases had circumstances that are so simple and easy to grasp. Being a newly transplanted New Yorker back in 1976 I found it fascinating, and still do.

[MattBaggins]

39. Which is controlled by a court system no?

Which while not a "municipality" per se, is still a local system that creates a fair and equitable system that protects you from some yahoo trying to open a water park near you and draining your water. I define that system as equitable.

I think it is dumb to try and criminalize folks that would catch and use roof water, since it would seem that doing so would ease water coming from the aquifers or waterways more than it would effect the replacement, although that might bot prove to be true. If they were given a permit to build and use water then let them collect roof water. If fifty gallons from the roof were not collected, how much of that would make it back to the local aquifer as opposed to them taking 50 gallons directly.

As for the whole private company part, perhaps the OP is misleading and leads to conclusion that this is about private companies taking control of Colorado's water.

[eleny]

40. No, it's not a local system that creates a fair and equitable system...

It's water law and our constitution. Disputes are resolved in Water Court, especially set up for these matters.

As for easing the aquifer.... Our aquifer is disappearing. It doesn't need easing. You can Google up some sites that track the condition of the aquifer here in Colorado and a few other states in this area.

What water doesn't get back to the aquifer goes up into the atmosphere. So this law isn't about one person collecting water in a cistern but the possibility of thousands of people doing it if it were legal because there is so little water here.

Please understand, we're just trying to teach you some things about water here in the west. Being a transplanted New Yorker myself, I had a lot to learn about it. It's so different from back home.

[MattBaggins]

44. I'm a New Yorker myself

I live on Lake Ontario so I am concerned with midwest water issues since I know you guys are eyeing our water. I have no problem with sending some of it your way if it goes to farmers and locals but I don't want to see it pumped down there to go to Exxon for oil sand extraction. I know that it works for you but if anyone starts trying to claim that we don't own the water on our roofs and yards, they can kiss my backside.

[eleny]

46. So you're way up north in NY

I'm originally from Queens down in the city. It was a shock to have to pay a monthly water bill instead of once or maybe twice a year as my parents did.

It's weird how we're eyeing "your" water after "ours" goes to other states like Kansas, NM, Arizona & California. I think the current problem started when Colorado made the big push to develop more and more housing. It was called the Californication of Colorado. Not that I'm for shutting the gates, so to speak, after I arrived here. People have to live somewhere. But they allowed a sprawl that was unnecessary. The state just couldn't resist a swelling tax base.

As for not owning the runoff from our roof, I can understand it. That's because I live in a high plaines desert and not next to a gigantic fresh water lake. :D

Btw, I'm just now reading a terrific book about the Great Lakes. It's titled The Third Coast by Ted McClelland. It came out last year. He took a 10,000 mile trip all around the lakes and tells the story of ordinary people he met.
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Coast-Folksingers-God-Save-Queen/dp/1556527217

Gotta go now. Thanks for all the discussion. I need to get some housework done before the press conference in an hour. See you around the forums! :hi:

[eleny]

37. No local control - that's right

I'm only talking about irrigation water than comes down from the mountains. So this isn't potable but used by the old properties all throughout this area. It used to be truck farms and orchards around here.

To answer your question - If we lived downstream of a McMansion and that big house was built with the irrigation ditch running through that property, they aren't allowed to take any unless ditch rights came with their property. They cannot tamper with the ditch or obstruct the flow of the water in any way. In fact, I have access to their property 24/7 to conduct maintenance. We have to stay on the ditch easement which is 5 feet on either side of the ditch. I don't even have to ask permission but common courtesy is a our rule. It would be dumb to go barging around.

Now, about that little old lady question. Let's take that further how it might relate to my situation. Suppose there are a series of little old ladies who have the ditch on their various properties upstream from us - but they don't own shares of the ditch. And suppose each of those little old ladies were using the ditch water thus lessening the flow to water rights owners downstream. You betcha I and my fellow water rights owners would deal with each and every one of them.

But--- If those "little old ladies" grabbed a bucket of water now and then for a tomato plant and it really didn't affect the flow of water, I wouldn't care. But you must understand that water is serious out here in the west. When people even use water out of turn, others refer to that as "stealing water" because someone else is paying for its use.

The way this works, I'm not even permitted to have a cistern to gather every last drop of water that runs through our property when it's our turn to use it during the month. I can water my yard, garden, flowers, whatever. But I'm not allowed to fill up a reservoir, albeit small, during that time. I have to use it to water and let what flows past our water pump so that it continues downstream to a lake that depends on a small but continuous flow from us.

[backscatter712]

29. Yeah, the bottom's falling out of the oil industry here in Colorado.

When gas was $4 a gallon and oil was $165 a barrel, everybody was gearing up for drilling here in Colorado.

Now that oil prices have plummeting, the oil companies are leaving. Oil shale is very expensive to get oil from, not to mention environmentally messy, and with oil prices down to sane levels, they're not going to do it.

[eleny]

31. Exactly. I don't know why they jumped so fast to start up notions of oil shale extraction

I suppose they had dreams of the prices staying high.

Now I'm eager to follow their interest in keeping the rights to the water or if they'll decide to sell it. They could make a bundle selling it.

[NorthernSpy]

23. If the ranchers own the rain, then they own the drought.

And they shouldn't ask the rest of us for aid when everything dries up.

[dysfunctional press]

24. do they write tickets to kids who catch snowflakes on their tongues?

thieving little bastards.

and if it snows really heavy, does that mean that residents are forbidden to shovel their sidewalks without some kind of special permit to divert all that water...?

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. I have heard this before and I think that it is utter insanity.

[quaker bill]

43. water Barons cannot be allowed to own 'rain water'

the point is that they already do, and in the west, have owned it for a very long time. It may seem absurd, but I am sure that this is correct.

The question is not whether they "should" own it, as that proposes opposition to some future state. The question is whether the people should get the water rights they do not currently own returned to them. I would agree that they should.

[LanternWaste]

47. Today it's rainwater, tomorrow it's breathable air...

Today it's rainwater, tomorrow it's breathable air...

But to be honest, this type of attitude does not surprise me at all. With the flamewars I've read regarding the rights of states to allow or deny water which collected within the confines of those imaginary red and blue lines on a map we call borders, the attitude of "It's my/our water-- I'll/we'll sell it you, but you can't have it" is not uncommon even on DU.

I imagine that in a hundred years, we'll be collecting and refining breathable air, selling it for a tidy profit, and if you can't afford it, well "... you just should have worked harder." :eyes:

You gotta love DU sometimes-- health care for all, water for the few.

[tabbycat31]

48. and this is why water should not be privatized