Larry L wrote:
"Willi" wrote


It gives me some hope.




I hope things go well.

As you know and mentioned, water laws in the West are often ridiculous.
I own a small piece of irrigated farmland. I once offered to take a lot
less water than "I own the right to" as a conservation measure in a dry
season. Turns out I'd permanently lose ( maybe, "if caught" ) my "water
rights" by such a move. Since the land is worth about 10 times as much with
the water as it would be without, I was forced to use "my share" instead of
share.

Colorado recently passed a law that stated that leaving water in a
stream or river was a legal use. There are some hurdles to go through in
order to leave water in a stream or river for the benefit of the
wildlife because the "use it or lose it" law is still on the books.




I just saw some pictures of the HFork at Osborne bridge taken a few days
ago. The water is so low it makes me want to weep. This in a state
that uses ( I'm told ) several times the water/ pound of potatoes to grow
spuds compared to neighboring states, simply because the farmers have zero
incentive to conserve and some incentive to waste built into the laws,
similar to my story.

I saw those too. In Colorado everyone always brings up our population
with the lawns etc. as the source of the problem. However, home/domestic
usage of water is only about 3% of the water usage for the state. 90% is
used for irrigation/agriculture. I'm all for conserving water by all
users, but even a 50% reduction in domestic use would only save 1 1/2%
while only a 4% saving in irrigation usage would translate into more
water than is used by all domestic users.

Water is extremely valuable in the West. People that own the water are
very powerful people who have no desire to change the way things have
always been done.

Willi

Willi