"Willi" wrote in message
...

...I know this is more than you asked but this is definitely one of my
"issues".

A great deal more......but all interesting in its own right. Thanks.

However, what I was getting at was the inherent waste (some of the details
of which you covered nicely) implicit in the "use it or lose it" policy
Larry mentioned in connection with the "small piece of irrigated farmland"
he owns. Irrigating farmland, as you pointed out (and as most of us already
knew, anyway) is often.....almost always.....a stupendously wasteful
practice (not necessarily so, perhaps, but just so in reality). What I was
wondering about was whether retaining water rights via using the water
depends on a certain minimum usage and/or particular kind of use.

Nothing in what you wrote seems to suggest that the water MUST be put to a
particular use or that one need to use any minimum amount in order to retain
rights. Thus, it seems that perhaps anyone concerned with retaining water
rights (to maintain property value, or for whatever other reason) and also
about environmental concerns (or even simply a selfish desire to keep water
levels at a certain minimum required for the health of fisheries) might be
able to satisfy both criteria by diverting a bit of water for some make-work
project that doesn't actually consume any water, but returns it all to the
stream. In short, if you have to "use it or lose it" don't do what everyone
else does. Make up your own ****.

Wolfgang