Mercury taints trout in famed Silver Creek

RW and others,

Thought you might find this interesting.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localn...ry/210344.html

JT

"JT" wrote in message
...
RW and others,

Thought you might find this interesting.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localn...ry/210344.html



I spent all of September at Silver Creek this year and camped at Hayspur
near the fish hatchery.

The water for the hatchery comes from a couple spring creeks, notably Loving
Creek, that eventually join Silver. They are all part of the same
aquifer, as is the Big Wood. I wonder if the Big Wood and hatchery
waters were tested.

I've been fishing Silver for around 25 years and this trip it was lower than
I have every seen it. Each year when I go there several new, huge, homes
have sprung up to suck up some more of the water that historically has made
it to Silver. Both the Big Wood and Siver Creek are under threat from
development, mainly in the form of these supersized trophy homes .... ( did
we all notice the huge home in Georgia using water at record rates during
the worst drought on record ? ... this type of person doesn't give a
single **** about anyone or anything but themselves and their own display of
ego via consumption )

In Sept I also drove to Jerome to protest suggested regulation changes on
the Creek. Five ( yes 5 and only 5 ) people over several years had
complained that they couldn't keep "enough" Brown Trout from Silver or use
their boats to fish from. Because of those 5 the F&G just decided to
'propose' increasing the limit and lifting 'floating vehicle type'
restrictions on this small, sensitive stream. To the credit of the
locals a LOT more than five turned out to protest. The proposed new rules
were defeated and the only change to be made is a very sensible re-writing
of the definition of "float tube" to make enforcement more clear cut.

I don't know of a single trout stream in the West that isn't under serious
threat. Sure, some of the smaller freestones near their sources are still
only at risk from Nature's action. But given the drought, increasing
temperatures, and development demand for water, all streams lower down the
mountains are suffering and I expect it to get worse.

If we want our great grandkids to go to the places we love and understand
why we loved them, it's past time to stand up and be counted in the fight to
preserve them. And it's past time to trim our own consumption to a level
closer to sustainable .... a new rod we don't need, a new anything when the
old one could be repaired and suffice, adds carbon to the air and pollution
to the water. The buy more, throw away more, "I am what I own" mentality
that has characterized the last few decades ... the attitude .. is one of
the greatest threats to our great grandkid's and the world they will have to
live on.

Larry L wrote:


In Sept I also drove to Jerome to protest suggested regulation changes on
the Creek. Five ( yes 5 and only 5 ) people over several years had
complained that they couldn't keep "enough" Brown Trout from Silver or use
their boats to fish from. Because of those 5 the F&G just decided to
'propose' increasing the limit and lifting 'floating vehicle type'
restrictions on this small, sensitive stream. To the credit of the
locals a LOT more than five turned out to protest. The proposed new rules
were defeated and the only change to be made is a very sensible re-writing
of the definition of "float tube" to make enforcement more clear cut.

I don't know of a single trout stream in the West that isn't under serious
threat. Sure, some of the smaller freestones near their sources are still
only at risk from Nature's action. But given the drought, increasing
temperatures, and development demand for water, all streams lower down the
mountains are suffering and I expect it to get worse.


There are two dam expansions and a new dam proposed on feeders of my
home river. Without any mitigation, this means that the lower river will
be sucked totally dry for much of the season. I'm involved in a group
that was formed to try and protect the river. Since it is on the
plains, it has never been classified as a fishery even though the DOW
knows it hold the biggest trout in the drainage. Right now we're doing a
year long usage study for the DOW to establish this section of the river
as a viable fishery.

Colorado is the last state (I believe) to still follow the original
water laws that basically give the holders of the most senior water
rights ultimate and essentially unfettered control over the water these
rights confer. The water right laws that are followed are based on laws
that were written before Colorado was even a state. However, for the
first time in Colorado, there were be a collaborative effort involved in
the planning and implementation which will include environmental impact
statements. I think this is being tried because the city owns 50% + of
the water projects and the river flows right through town. The city
wants its water but I also think they want to avoid drying up the river.
They have some conflicted interests. If it is successful, it may serve
as a model for future projects.

Even considering this, I was skeptical that anything could be done. The
dams will be expanded and the new one might be built. Anyway you look at
it, there will be more water taken out of the river. However, what the
biologist is trying to do is get some control over the releases from
these and two other dams owned by the companies. As things are run now,
when the water companies want releases, they release the water all at
once to get it downstream where they need it. This means water levels
come up extremely high for a day or two, then drop to low levels. When
they draw water out, they take it out all at once. The result are
yoyoing water levels, too high - too low. The biologist feels that even
with less water being released into the river, by having some control
about when and how it is released, he can have more water in the river
on average and prevent dewatering and fish kills. He feels this can be
done at little cost or significant consequence to the water companies.
It gives me some hope.

Willi

"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.


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.

The idea that the guy that manages and conserves the best should be the last
one shut off in extreme dry conditions and the one paying the least per
acre foot all the time, is too smart, I guess ... or too "progressive" in
many
Western areas ( heah, it ain't the way we always did it so it must be
wrong )

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

"Willi" wrote in message
...
Larry L wrote:

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.

Leading one to wonder just how "use" is defined. If, for example, merely
removing the water from the stream satisfies legal requirements, then what's
to prevent someone from running a pipe from the stream to a box containing a
mechanism that powers a whirligig and thence via another pipe back to the
stream, a bit downhill? If the law is more stringent, build yourself an
open topped box, grow watercress in it, and let the "used" water flow back
through a drain pipe.

There are many ways to use water without losing much of it.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:


Leading one to wonder just how "use" is defined. If, for example, merely
removing the water from the stream satisfies legal requirements, then what's
to prevent someone from running a pipe from the stream to a box containing a
mechanism that powers a whirligig and thence via another pipe back to the
stream, a bit downhill? If the law is more stringent, build yourself an
open topped box, grow watercress in it, and let the "used" water flow back
through a drain pipe.

I don't pretend to understand much of it. Water law in Colorado is
extremely complex and this has resulted in Colorado having the most
"water" lawyers in the country.

"Beneficial usage" is the term used in the law.

"Appropriation of water must be for a beneficial use. Only the amount
reasonably needed for a lawful purpose is "beneficial." Colorado law
does not designate all beneficial uses. It says instead “use of that
amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably
efficient practices without waste for which the appropriation was
lawfully made” C.R.S. 37-92-103(4)

Beneficial use refers both to the purpose of the use (irrigation,
municipal, etc.) and the manner of the use (demonstrated need for the
amount of water appropriated under reasonably efficient practices)

The 1876 Colorado Constitution named only agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and domestic uses as beneficial uses. In 1973 the
legislature passed a minimum stream flow bill which created a new
category of beneficial use. State held instream flows sufficient to
protect the environment to a reasonable degree are a beneficial use. In
2002 the law was amended to also permit improvement of the stream as a
valid beneficial use."



Every acre foot (inch) of water is accounted for and owned. They are
serious about this. In Colorado, it's illegal for a homeowner to
capture and store the rainwater that falls on his roof ie a drum or
cistern at the end of your downspout. People have been fined for doing
this. Wells are another interesting note in Colorado law. It is illegal
for people to drill a well on their land with out having water rights ie
a well permit. These "well permits" are actually water rights and are a
finite resource. They are bought and sold in a complex matter. By law
there is one well permit allotted to every 35 acres. Some land, usually
rural, is sold with a "well permit" that has been purchased when the
land was subdivided and is tied to that parcel of land. Most
rural homeowners that have a "well permit" can only use that water for
domestic usage, ie household usage. This means no outside watering, no
watering of live stock etc. For outside watering of any type, more water
rights must be obtained.



There are many ways to use water without losing much of it.


Maybe but it also seems to me that there are more ways of losing it
without using much of it.

One of the biggest wastes I see are open unlined irrigation canals that
are used to transport water. Huge amounts of water are "lost" to seepage
and evaporation - more water than makes it down the canal at times. I
have an irrigation canal that runs along one of my property lines. It's
great for me, as it results in a subirrigated meadow running the length
of my property and raises the water table on my land to about ten feet.
Increased water usage in Colorado is always blamed on our growing
population. Granted this growth does has an effect, but domestic usage
only accounts for about 3% of water usage in the State. Over 90% is
agricultural usage. There are always pushes to conserve domestic use
(which I agree with) but there are no projects to conserve agricultural
usage. Based on the water usage, it seems to me that we should be
concentrating on making our agricultural usage more efficient. Just a 5%
saving of agricultural use will result in more water than is used by
all the people that live in Colorado for their personal use. More
efficient transportation of water would reduce the need for new and
bigger dams.


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

Willi

"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

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

"Willi" wrote



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

Willi



All very interesting, imo


Two of my property borders are open canals and I know exactly what you mean.
They spent weeks patching one this summer which worked out well for me in
that they put in three new gates and some new fences in return for my
allowing them to access via my place instead of their normal easement.
Before the patch it leaked nearly as much as it delivered.

We are flood irrigation, which is exactly what it sounds like ... the whole
place looks like a shallow lake just after each cycle. It appears to be
and is a inefficient way to water, but a cheap one and almost all of Calif
ag is using it. Just better distribution of water to current customers
for current uses would be a huge improvement, that is obvious.

I'm not really in rice country, but we do have rice growing near here.
All summer it stands in knee deep water and enough must evaporate to
service many cities. Then it is harvested and the government pays the
farmer for raising it. ( At least this was true a few years back when I
investigated ... there was no real market for the rice, just government
subsidy ) "Rice ground" is very similar to water rights in Calif. I
came very close to buying 40 acres of it once to turn into dog training
ponds/ private duck hunting. Turns out that IF you don't grow your rice
for a given year you lose the right to subsidies. If I had made those
ponds I would not have been able to turn the land back to rice growing to
sell it at my retirement and such dirt has little value other than for rice.

Ag has far more power in the West than is reasonable .... and let's not kid
ourselves, modern agriculture has little, if anything, to do with "family
farms" it is big business and it buys "your" politicians just like the oil
and drug companies do.