You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:57:08 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Interesting Article  (Read 654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Interesting Article
« on: May 03, 2012, 09:46:48 AM »
http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/senate-bill-2109-seeks-to-extinguish-navajo-and-hopi-water-rights.html

I spotted this and posted it for a reason. There is a growing trend, both here in the US and elsewhere, to hammer the populace over water rights. I know in some South American countries water rights have been privatized so heavily.. you can't collect RAINWATER. It belongs to the water company.

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2012, 11:58:05 AM »
There isn't much to say about it.....

Water rights are currently owned by the tribes. In order to "lose" those water rights the tribe have to give them away or sell them. I can go ask for their water rights and it's essentially the same thing as this story says. Until they actually give or sell their water rights there isn't much to talk about. And even then there isn't much to talk about since they gave or sold their water rights.

Before there's a bunch of comments about how unfair it is these tribes are led by educated, urbane individuals who are more then capable of playing the political game. It's not unfair, nor is it taking advantage to approach business men and attempt to get them to divest themselves of the water rights.  This isn't mean white senators beating up on kind, trusting indians. It's business. One way or the other.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2012, 12:54:15 PM »
I must not have been clear I'm more worried about the Privatization of what used to be public water rights. You see this more overseas but the fight over water rights here in the US is growing more common. As is the push to allow more of it to be privatized. Already in some jurisdictions it requires permits or is illegal to collect water from rainfall on your own land.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2012, 01:45:55 PM »
The rainwater laws were actually put in place a long time ago (typically in arid to semi-arid regions) to prevent large commercial farms from retaining all their rainwater and thus depriving the smaller farms that were more dependent on runoff.

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2012, 02:01:03 PM »
It is worrisome but it also depends on where you live. I see no problem with competing private water companies in the north east or elsewhere where water is abundant. But I do see a problem with it in an area such as the south west. For several years now I've been following the tragedy that has been happening across Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona as all their aquifers deplete leaving the ranchers with fewer and fewer places to water their cattle while Vegas continues to have its nightly water shows....in the middle of a desert. 

More practically though the article you shared would just be one private owner transferring their interest to another private owner. The west has always had much stricter common and statutory land use controls over water then other parts of the country, for a good reason.

Parts of the country already have private water companies, like much of New England. In Boston it costs about $65 per month for 12,000 gallons of water (family of four each using 100 gallons a day). Seems expensive, right? Especially when compared to Vegas at around $50 per month for 14,000 gallons.

The difference in cost is largely due to Vegas's system and pipes being fifty years old while the Boston system is 100 years old. Things need to be replaced, fixed, and modernized so the water is more expensive to pay for those needed changes rather then using taxes to do the same thing.

Privatization of water is like the privatization of anything else utility related in this country. If companies, who can provide it cheaper and more efficiently then the government can since they are for profit while the government is not, start screwing around with service, or show themselves to unable to run the system, municipalities and state govt. take their contracts away and find someone who can do what need.

With water rights in this country the government, whether local or federal, always has a future interest in the water. The owner of the water only has present possessory interest. If the current owner does something that goes against their contract or fails to meet come criteria of that contract the govt can reclaim its water rights. Keep in mind I'm talking about water distribution, not the stream in your backyard. Although, even there, you have certain duties but usually along the lines of keeping it reasonably free of debris so in the event of a storm you don't flood your downstream neighbor's property.

I don't really care what other countries do with their water.

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2012, 02:06:44 PM »
Rereading it I might not have been clear.....

In the US public water rights to drinking water are public rights. The public has a future interest in those rights. Those rights may be sold, granted, deeded, or otherwise assigned to companies whose job it is to provide drinking, bathing, cooking, etc. water but the public, through the govt, has the power to strip those corporations of their contracts if they violate the public trust because the rights reside in the public, not the company doing the work. The company is, essentially, a leaseholder.

At least in the east. The west has different rules that I'm not familiar with due to their chronic shortage of water.


Offline Zakharra

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2012, 11:56:35 PM »
 The state I live in (Idaho) is starting to try to catalog all of the water rights so all of the unclaimed (and claimed) water rights would be registered by the state and in an emergency, could be regulated by the state government, for better use. For droughts for instance.  Any water right claim that couldn't be proven (ie, you have the claim in your hand) would be taken by the state. It was a push from the southern part of the state and we were promised that it wouldn't affect us, but to no ones surprise, they tried to do that to us in the northern part of the state too.

 The state had promised that they wouldn't try to do that that year and were surprised at the angry response they got from us here. The southern part of Idaho is a drier area, while in the central and panhandle area, we have a lot of water and many people up here, own their water rights. My mate has the water right deed in an old desk in our house.  We, like a lot of the older families here, own the water rights directly and none of us found it amusing that the state was looking for a way to be able to take them.

 So we fought back and are now on guard against this.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2012, 02:20:05 AM »
It will get worse... trust me. You got California trying to screw everyone west of the Rockies for their water rights..and they are trying to screw their own farmers for it.. I saw them trying those games back in 2000. Right now you have private interests doing this in less developed countries with a problem with capital.

Soon though, a decade or two..they'll try to leverage the rights in other areas like the US, Canada and Europe. You watch.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2012, 03:15:53 PM »
It will get worse... trust me. You got California trying to screw everyone west of the Rockies for their water rights..and they are trying to screw their own farmers for it.. I saw them trying those games back in 2000. Right now you have private interests doing this in less developed countries with a problem with capital.

Soon though, a decade or two..they'll try to leverage the rights in other areas like the US, Canada and Europe. You watch.

 Tell me about it. We've been hearing stories from Washington and Oregon for awhile about California trying to claim water from the Columbia river (I think there is a pipeline or something, or talk about one being built) for water to be pumped to California. They've already looked into power claims. But we're on alert for things like that now so it's harder for them to slip crap claims like that in.

 The water right issue this is already putting a mild strain on Washington/Idaho relations because of an aquifer that straddles the state line, and from the demands of farmers and heavy industries farther downstream that want the water in the rivers and large lakes here.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2012, 04:04:36 PM »
Tell me about it. We've been hearing stories from Washington and Oregon for awhile about California trying to claim water from the Columbia river (I think there is a pipeline or something, or talk about one being built) for water to be pumped to California. They've already looked into power claims. But we're on alert for things like that now so it's harder for them to slip crap claims like that in.

 The water right issue this is already putting a mild strain on Washington/Idaho relations because of an aquifer that straddles the state line, and from the demands of farmers and heavy industries farther downstream that want the water in the rivers and large lakes here.

Well for power.. it's their own damn fault for deregulating in the 90s. Around 98 or 99 they deregulated and within weeks we had brown outs all up and down the coast. The moment Gov Dan Brown signed off on it, the utilities were selling power to other states and leaving  california on the hind teat. I had at least six chief petty officers and twice as many 1st/2nd Class petty officers having to move their family to base housing because of health/finances. The brown outs also did in like 3 ice cream places and two dairies in San Diego.