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

[geebee]

franklin wrote:

The issue isn't private vs public but federal vs states. .

no, the issue is States selling off the water on State Land or National Parks to be used OUTSIDE the park.

case in point was a ski resort in a national park buys water to make snow on its slopes. they then re sell the water lease to frackers or mineral water bottlers....

its about dewatering public land for private profit - the ski resorts are obviously given leases because the net watering effect is zero - and they bring jobs and visitors to the parks.

 

[FarmerDave]

Geebee, the way I see it, you are right and wrong at the same time. Or should I say, both off you might be correct.

What you are stating is indeed the "problem" from your point of view and Mario's and I am leaning that way, too. But what Franklin is stating also appears to be accurate. The Bill is not about that. The bill does appear to be between the State and Federal Government and would help block the Federal Government from acquiring (or re- acquiring, depending on how you look at it). those rights through what some might call unethical means.

Most of that vacant land should be state owned in the first place, but the territories were required to sign over all land as part of statehood. It had something to do with creating clear deeds or something like that. That land what was privately held before statehood was deeded to it's previous owners. The vacant land should have reverted back to being stat owned.

It's why Nevada is about 80% federally owned, but it wasn't. Fed kept it.

The water rights were apparently not part of the deal back then. I'm not a fan of how the water rights are handled out west, but it is what it is.

I of course could be wrong, but that is the way I understand it.

 

[franklin]

geebee wrote:

franklin wrote:

The issue isn't private vs public but federal vs states. .

no, the issue is States selling off the water on State Land or National Parks to be used OUTSIDE the park.

case in point was a ski resort in a national park buys water to make snow on its slopes. they then re sell the water lease to frackers or mineral water bottlers....

its about dewatering public land for private profit - the ski resorts are obviously given leases because the net watering effect is zero - and they bring jobs and visitors to the parks.

The practice of the western states selling water rights is well over a hundred years old and originates during a time the feds had little or no interest in much of the land. Fault the feds for deferring on land and water management back then. The states profited when they initially sold the rights.

I think your hostility towards private businesses is misplaced. You should be complaining that the sates sold off the public water rights.

 

[geebee]

franklin wrote:
The states profited when they initially sold the rights.

I think your hostility towards private businesses is misplaced. You should be complaining that the sates sold off the public water rights.

i have no issue with the states selling water rights to public land to operators ON public land - whether its grazing, skiing or whatever.

the issue here is public water being used outside public lands.

to call it hostility to private business is just a diversion for the real argument - which is i repeat, the selling on of water rights and removing it from the watershed.

i mean lets look at who is supporting the bill and opposing any amendments that would protect minimum flows etc - oil and gas co's, national cattlemans association, the national ski association....

its not hard to work out why is it ? - they are looking to "buy and dry" public water inttended for public use.

 

[franklin]

geebee wrote:

franklin wrote:
The states profited when they initially sold the rights.

I think your hostility towards private businesses is misplaced. You should be complaining that the sates sold off the public water rights.

i have no issue with the states selling water rights to public land to operators ON public land - whether its grazing, skiing or whatever.

the issue here is public water being used outside public lands.

to call it hostility to private business is just a diversion for the real argument - which is i repeat, the selling on of water rights and removing it from the watershed.

i mean lets look at who is supporting the bill and opposing any amendments that would protect minimum flows etc - oil and gas co's, national cattlemans association, the national ski association....

its not hard to work out why is it ? - they are looking to "buy and dry" public water inttended for public use.

What restrictions or rights are included in the water lease that was purchased from the state? If the state sold it away they sold it away. If the feds want it let them buy it back.

It's as if you sold a used car and then found out that the car was worth more than you sold it for. Then you ask the buyer to give you more money or give the car back.

Again, the real issue here is that the Interior Department is trying to do this on the backs of those who legally and honestly paid for the water rights instead of working through Congress and the states directly.

 

[geebee]

franklin wrote:

It's as if you sold a used car and then found out that the car was worth more than you sold it for. Then you ask the buyer to give you more money or give the car back.

nope. not even close. its the regulation of extractive rights from public land...

i don't get it, whats your agenda here ? - you're on a fly fishing forum arguing AGAINST water preservation ????

what gives ?

 

[franklin]

geebee wrote:

franklin wrote:

It's as if you sold a used car and then found out that the car was worth more than you sold it for. Then you ask the buyer to give you more money or give the car back.

nope. not even close. its the regulation of extractive rights from public land...

i don't get it, whats your agenda here ? - you're on a fly fishing forum arguing AGAINST water preservation ????

what gives ?

As I said the ends do not justify the means. The government should be operating above board. Not trying to screw private people or businesses. I despise dishonest government.

The feds obviously concede that the rights were legally sold by the state. Otherwise they would be in court trying to reclaim them. And they concede that those who purchased the rights are operating within the rights of the leases. Otherwise they would be in court against them.

Fishing organizations who line up against private property rights run the risk of loosing a lot of access to fishing on private land. They also run the risk of loosing support from private enterprise for key initiatives. If you dig into the issue in the OP you will see that the skiing industry recommended that the feds buy the rights directly. It would be much better to work with them. Especially when it's the right way to proceed.

Nowhere in my posts did I argue against good water management.