Wolfgang wrote:

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


You're trying to find simple loopholes that I doubt really exist. The
water laws are older than our State and they have been honed by the
moneyed interests. I don't understand them well enough to explain this
to you.

Water rights convey the usage of X amount of acre feet of water per
season. All of this water needs to be put into a "beneficial use".
Although maintaining stream and river levels is now a "beneficial use",
it needs to be demonstrated that these flows are "needed" in the river.
This involves EIS's etc. This is beyond the scope of the average person
owning these water rights. As far as I know, it has been done only by
the State and some municipalities.



As a side note showing the "power" of senior water rights owners, here
is a picture I took today of a section of river owned by THE COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE!!! The river was dewatered by the DOW using
their senior water rights. This is part of the section of river that the
organization I belong to is trying to protect and obtain some consistent
flows. It's VERY discouraging when your own DOW will do this to a river.


http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Hatchery11152007.jpg

Willi