We live in a desert state. Water law needs to be strengthened and corrected to avoid abuse. Water should be kept within the aquifer that it is generated when stream flows are transferred in to well rights. The stream flows should be used to recharge the aquifer that the well right was granted to protect from over appropriation of the water.
Water companies and Irrigation companies are under scrutiny with recent canal breaks. The state needs individuals on the hill to help over see any change to water law that may affect these companies. Change in water law that allows for transfer of water rights without regard to other water users or the life of the water company needs to be watched, caught and stopped. Undue regulation needs to be avoided.
Posted by Richard Behling at 10:16 AM
Labels: rights, water
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Patrick Painter on Water;
ReplyDeleteWe had a cottage meeting tonight were the issue of water was discussed and hotly contended. Representative Painter made a strong stand on the ownership of the right of an individual to do as they please with their water rights. His contention is that they are property.
Just a little history, many of the water projects and irrigation projects in the west would have never been completed if it were not for the cooperation of all the individuals and without the partnership of the government. They had to be built this way as one without the other would have never been completed, the cost would have been too great.
Representative Painter feels that now it is right to transfer that water from these entities regardless of the consequence. As long as the water stays within the aquifer there is no damage no harm. This is not the truth. Let me give you a quick example.
Suppose I own shares in Chrysler-Dodge. I decide that after the plant is built and cars are coming off the line I want to take my shares and transfer them to Ford. On the surface it sounds ok, but what if those shares had part of the plant or some of the technology attached to them. What if the only way to make that transfer was to transfer the stock with the property? It’s completely different now. Chrysler-Dodge has decided to end Painter Motors Franchise with no input and with no regard to the many people that have relied On Painter Motors for continued sales and service. Representative Painter feels this is unfair but it is ok to make the decision to do the same thing to the water companies of this state.
Let me put it more bluntly. Las Vegas comes in and buys up the water rights to Snake Valley. Builds the pipe line and can now pump and move all the water they want regardless of the impact on the people of Utah and the few remaining people in the Snake Valley. It’s their water and their property right. You will not find many that would agree to this in the State of Utah. Please tell me what the difference is! Please!
Very well put, as a former councilman who served on SUVMWA this is exactly what concerned us and our engineers. There was a study done a few years back and all of the ground water rights as well as surface wter rights are allocated in south Utah County. So when you take Surface water rights and convert them to ground water rights in the south end of the county form any of the points of diversion you really are taking something that doesn't belong to you. We live in the west and water is our most valuable resource and we can not afford to have someone write legislation that will allow developers to take it away from the existing residents and farmers. You get this and I wish I could give you my vote, but I am not in your district.
ReplyDeleteThis is the most poignant statement of your article to me: "Change in water law that allows for transfer of water rights without regard to other water users or the life of the water company needs to be watched, caught and stopped."
ReplyDeleteI agree that somehow a person's right to property (their own water shares) needs to be balanced with what affect it will have on someone else's property rights (THEIR own water shares).
It's not clear to me whether Patrick Painter understands this nuance on the issue.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteThis is why we needed to stop the discussion the other night. Repressntitive Painter does not understand the balance. He only understands the property right. Where the property right does not conflict with the rest of the share holders or a compromise can be worked out the water is transfered.
He (Representitive Painter) pointed out that now Agriculture Commissioner Blackham had helped to clear up the law in order to allow for such changes. Commissioner Blackham would hotly disagree with him on the trasfer of water rights issues. I know him personaly. They see it two different ways.