Keeping Public water on public lands (and not selling it)

[geebee]

American Rivers Org are petitioning the USFS to NOT allow States to sell Park waters to business - which is going to be allowed by this new Water Act promoted by the Ski Industry and ranchers :

http://act.americanrivers.org/page/speakout/water-rights-public-land?js=false

please take a moment to email the USFS and share on Facebook.

Cheers

 

[franklin]

I read the bill. The American Rivers organization seems to be miss characterizing the bill. I see nothing in the text of the bill that prevents the EPA or any Federal agency from enforcing water quality standards.

 

[mario66pens]

Good stuff gee bee, big business would take it all in a heartbeat if we let them.

 

[mario66pens]

1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Water Rights Protection Act .

2. Treatment of water rights
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture—

(1) shall not condition the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement on the transfer or relinquishment of any water right directly to the United States, in whole or in part, granted under State law, by Federal or State adjudication, decree, or other judgment, or pursuant to any interstate water compact and the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture; and
(2) shall not require any water user to apply for a water right in the name of the United States under State law as a condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement.

 

[franklin]

SEC. 4. IMPACT ON EXISTING AUTHORITY.

Nothing in this Act limits or expands any existing legally recognized authority of the Secretaries to issue, grant, or condition any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement on Federal lands subject to their respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 5. EFFECT ON RECLAMATION CONTRACTS.

Nothing in this Act shall in any way interfere with existing or future Bureau of Reclamation contracts entered into pursuant to Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act).

SEC. 6. EFFECT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

SEC. 7. EFFECT ON FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act limits or expands any existing reserved water rights of the Federal Government on lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture.

SEC. 8. EFFECT ON FEDERAL POWER ACT.

Nothing in this Act limits or expands authorities pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(j), or 18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e), 803(j), and 811).

 

[franklin]

This isn't about businesses taking more water. This is about the federal government forcing people and entities that own water rights to give it to the US government as a condition of renewal leases.

 

[franklin]

I have to wonder if many people actually do some research on these headlines that the so called "conservation" groups put out. I subscribe to a good many of these groups so that I get their email alerts. And I do research a number of them. I find quite a high percentage of these alerts are misleading.

 

[geebee]

i read everything Americanwaters do.

good people.

 

[franklin]

American Rivers is a dishonest organization as this case is a good example. What is really at stake is who manages water use and water rights in the west, the states or the federal government. Instead of addressing the debate directly with states and allowing a process to produce an economically fair and ecologically sound solution to evolve the feds are strong arming state water rights from those leasing federal land. This approach unfairly puts the burden on lessees, doesn't lead to a complete water use plan, and usurps states rights with no discussion.

American Rivers presents a story that avoids informing readers of the true issues in an effort to drum up support from the uninformed who fail to dig deeper and apply critical thinking.

We can see above from reading excerpts of the bill that it specifically retains key authorities the federal government already has in place. The bill does not give water rights owners any additional capacity or place any additional restraints on the federal government other than stopping the practice of extorting water rights from lessees.

This is an example of an all too common practice used by many so called conservation organizations.

If the federal government wants to acquire state water rights why don't they simply buy them on the open market directly? Because the approach they are on will alow them extort them from lessees and thus get them below market price under the radar without getting congressional approval?

I mailed letters to both my congressman and senators in support of HR 3189 and S 1630.

 

[geebee]

franklin wrote:
American Rivers is a dishonest organization as this case is a good example. .

I strongly disagree - AR has a long history of good work - removal of the Veazie and Greatworks dams on the Penobscot, The Elhwa dam, etc etc.

in 2013 they removed 51 dams in 18 States - 12 in PA alone.

in not one single case did the state or Feds benefit, the only people that benefited was US, the American People who drink, fish and paddle the waters.

If an organisation like AR who have plenty of expertise and legal advice, call a Bill bad for our public water, then I think they're 100% right to do so.

if you think otherwise, then that is fair enough - but to call them dishonest ? that is utter horseshit.

 

[franklin]

I've never believed the ends justified the means.

 

[Tups]

GeeBee: I clicked on your link to American Rivers and received a message from them that the "campaign" does not exist. I wonder if they scrubbed it in response to Franklin's observations. hmmmmm.

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:

franklin wrote:
American Rivers is a dishonest organization as this case is a good example. .

I strongly disagree - AR has a long history of good work

geebee, I didn't read your link, and apparently it is not gone. All I have to say is that dishonest and long history of good work are not always mutually exclusive. When politics are involved, they usually aren't. We see it all the time.

I'm sure that PETA and HSUS have also done some good work, but do you think they are always honest as well? Quite the contrary.

If an organization like AR who has plenty of expertise and legal advice, calls a Bill bad for our public water, then I think they're 100% right to do so.

It looks to me like the bill is not bad for our existing public federal waters. What it seems to do is prevent the Feds from extorting more public waters.

IMO, based on what I have read in this thread including you, Mario and Franklin, the AR is being less than honest although good intentioned from the general public point of view.

 

[mario66pens]

What it seems to do is prevent the Feds from extorting more public waters.

Prevent the Feds from extorting PUBLIC water?

 

[FarmerDave]

mario66pens wrote:

What it seems to do is prevent the Feds from extorting more public waters.

Prevent the Feds from extorting PUBLIC water?

You left out the word "more," but I'll admit to wording it poorly.

It looks to me like it is about water rights. Out west, water rights can be bought and sold like land or mineral rights in PA. The bill apparently is to prevent the Feds from extorting privately held water rights for water on public land.

It's confusing, but it is still extortion.

If this is not the case, please prove it. And keep in mind as an engineer I don't react strongly to emotion. Just the facts mam.

 

[mario66pens]

I guess its not the bill that I have major problems to, but rather the concept of private water rights on public land.

 

[geebee]

mario66pens wrote:
I guess its not the bill that I have major problems to, but rather the concept of private water rights on public land.

yup and as we've seen in other water rights cases, when theres no water left who picks up the tab ? - we, the taxpayer does.

its the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs.

 

[geebee]

FarmerDave wrote:

What it seems to do is prevent the Feds from extorting more public waters.

the campaign deadline was 08/30.

you are correct - the bill is intentioned to prevent both Federal and State govts from selling water rights on both SP and NP land for use outside that land.

ie using we the people's water for profit outside of public land.

 

[franklin]

mario66pens wrote:
I guess its not the bill that I have major problems to, but rather the concept of private water rights on public land.

Years ago the Federal government wasn't very involved in managing federal lands. The states "owned" and managed the water rights. Generally by selling off water rights leases. Now that the Feds are very involved managing Federal land the law has already been established with the state management of the water.

The issue isn't private vs public but federal vs states. The feds are trying to circumvent the problem by forcing private entities that lease federal land turn over water rights that they paid for. What the private industries are saying to the feds is "if you want to own the water rights then ante up the money and go buy them in the market". The Interior Department is using the process as a back door way of acquiring the water rights without going to congress and getting explicit approval.

The federal government probably should be managing the water rights and use in areas where large federal tracts exist. But they ought to be straight up about it. Ask Congress to fund the acquisition.

 

[franklin]

geebee wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

What it seems to do is prevent the Feds from extorting more public waters.

the campaign deadline was 08/30.

you are correct - the bill is intentioned to prevent both Federal and State govts from selling water rights on both SP and NP land for use outside that land.

ie using we the people's water for profit outside of public land.

"The people" already were paid for the water. It's just that the people that got paid were the citizens of the state.