# Pro Publica: A water war is brewing...



## jamesthomas (Sep 12, 2010)

Use it or loose it is the water law in the west.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Too many golf courses and lawns in the desert. I can’t imagine how much water needs to be dumped on a lawn to keep it green when it’s 115 degrees — and most of it evaporates.

Places like Phoenix and Vegas just aren’t suitable for millions of people.


----------



## MR. ED (Jan 21, 2008)

Whiskey’s for drinkin. Water’s for fightin. There was a recent article in MSM about foreign owned farms around Phoenix area(I think) growing alfalfa for their livestock back in the Middle East. Interesting times ahead. There’s a very prevalent mindset in my area that if the water isn’t used it will be taken away and given to someone else. Probably should just make a pipeline from the Great Lakes and make more golf courses in Vegas 😬


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

Super complicated issue, and while I agree golf courses and lawns don’t belong in a desert getting rid of all of them doesn’t dent the problem.

It’s 90% an agricultural and livestock issue. Subsidies and water rights back in the day all enable the problem. When a resource is over allocated from the start, it’s not set up for success. Glad I live at the top of the water supply and can’t wait to see the new Colorado river compact…

The war has been going on for a while now, even more prevalent with states posturing for the CRC negotiations.


----------



## theusualsuspect (Apr 11, 2014)

Most municipalities have been pretty good about maintaining their water usage over the past several decades despite population growth. Usgs has stats on out of stream water usage and 90% isn’t far off for agriculture. It is use it or lose it, prior appropriation water doctrine. If you don’t use your full allotment for some period of time it is considered abandoned and reallocated. I’m sure someone with a JD degree has more details.

edit found the usgs articlehttps://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/colorado-river-basin-focus-area-study-water-use#overview


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

In Oregon, you must put your full agricultural water right to beneficial use at least once every five years. You can maintain this by irrigating 20% of your acreage that has water rights each year. If you fail to put that water to beneficial use, it *MAY* (not will) be forfeit. It's not that likely. There also is no requirement that you measure how much you withdraw. It's a silly circle of logic. Growers say that putting in a meter would interfere with the flow rate. Growers say that they aren't drawing more water than they are allowed, but without measurement, how can one know? We really need to measure or there's no way to know. 

Are they putting their full right to beneficial use? We can't tell. Are they drawing more than their right? We can't tell. Realistically, this means a watermaster has no way to cancel a water right. Nobody can know.

Municipal water rights are different. The state knows that cities will grow, so they don't have to put their full right to use every five years. They also aren't allowed to draw their entire right. They have to "prove up" that they need additional water beyond what they are authorized to withdraw. That's called "Green Light Water," In order to get an increase in Green Light Water, a utility has to prove that it will need access to that water within the next 20 years, and they also have to show that they are doing a good job of managing the water they are withdrawing. They have to show that their distribution systems aren't leaky, and that they are encouraging customers to use water wisely. I recently retired from running a municipal water conservation program for decades. I was able to show the state about ten years ago that we needed Green Light Water, and right before I retired, I was able to show them that while we didn't need additional Green Light Water, we were being good stewards of the water we did withdraw. There's still a lot of paper water rights my City isn't authorized to withdraw. It's likely they never will need to because people are becoming better stewards. 

People have "exempt wells" at their homes if they aren't connected to a water system. A home is allowed to have a well without a water right to use for domestic purposes and to irrigate up to a half acre up to 15,000 gallons per day. I am on the muncipal system, and in the winter I use about 750 gallons per month. In summer I use five times that much, but that's nowhere near 15,000 gallons per day. You can also use exempt wells for livestock watering and for commercial/industrial purposes up to 5,000 gallons per day.

Other states have different water laws. Water rights are irrelevant if there's no water. That's the different between paper water rights and wet water rights. Prior appropriation sort of sucks if you are a junior user and the guy downstream wants his water. He can drain the stream dry, but you can't have a drop if drying the stream won't fulfill his right if he chooses to claim it. That five-year rule? Might make him tell you to shut down so he won't lose the water right.

Will we ever change Western Water Law? Stay tuned to find out. Go ahead and grab a beer now because it takes a lot of water to make beer. Most is used for cleaning, not for the beer itself.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Obviously there are big users out there like Agriculture and municipal water... but I feel like they are at least a little ok because the water returns to the system it was drawn from or at least returns to a place we can easily reclaim it. I'm sure there is significant impact from removing it from one river basin and tunneling it under the divide to use on the other side...but it at least evaporates and returns to the ecosystem.

I'll make the disclaimer that I'm not expert and people should DEFINITELY correct me... but the biggest industry I'm worried about is the oil industry and fracking in particular. It just feels to me like they use a ton of water and a lot of it is used in a way that will take a very long time to return to the ecosystems it was harvested in since it, along with "proprietary chemicals" gets pumped FAR FAR underground.

We will obviously have to revamp many aspects of our lives to deal with this mounting water crisis.... but perhaps reducing water usage that removes it from the system for decades or centuries is a good start.

I've largely discontinued use for my lawn.... my back yard was a brown dry mess. Still let it run a cycle every couple weeks....but drastically cut back on water use for that purpose. I still have work to do with other aspects of water use, but try to be conscious of it. It kind of blows my mind how many people just leave the faucet running for the entire time they are doing the dishes or similar house work. We are really gonna have to train that kind of thing out of people I think.

Still...obviously a drop in the bucket compared to industry and agriculture. Frankly.... I'm in favor of a zero tolerance ban on water use for fancy horse owners, farms who make boutique high water use food items, and any other non-critical crop or agricultural water use that was never intended to be grown in a arid desert environment. There are plenty of places where alfalfa grows naturally....get it from there. Almonds and Pistachios are allright... but if I never got to eat another one I wouldn't be that sad. By the way....






I highly recommend looking at companies that are under "The Wonderful Company" (that is pretty much the opposite behind the scenes) and never buying one of their products ever again. They make the POM Pomagranite juice and the main brand of Pistachios and Almonds and other nuts you see in stores (usually in a black bag), FIJI water, and a bunch of produce and floral products among many others. If you go to their website there is a fuck ton of bullshit greenwashing going on.

Grrr.... I didn't intend to write this long but it always gets away from me. Anyways.... I feel like we really do need to start the restrictions and revamp of this system NOW. I'm sympathetic to their plight...but also pretty sick of keeping these practices going "because jobs" but really "because billionairs need another billion".

Oh...and the use it or loose it thing needs to go away ASAP. People should be rewarded for their conservation of a resource and not punished.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

Here's one for ya....

One of the BIGGEST "uses" (wastes) of water is..... Hydropower. What? Yep. All of the evaporation from the surfaces of reservoirs removes that water from the river with no beneficial use. It's more use than what is evaporated from cooling towers at nuclear power plants or coal/gas/steam plants. It's not something we think about.

Lots of consumptive use is water that comes from groundwater at a rate faster than it can be recharged. Mining. It will be gone eventually. It will be on the surface or in the atmosphere.

Bottled water is, for the most part, really foolish. Not only does it use a lot of energy to make the bottles, but it takes a lot of energy to transport them. If I could find a way to charge people a buck and a quarter for something they had almost essentially free from a tap inside their homes, I'd go buy a new boat. 

Taking water from a river to irrigate some crops may allow for the water to return "to the environment." There are some return flows to the rivers, and they often carry agricultural chemistry. Fun stuff. What the plants use and what is evaporated from the soil surface doesn't go back to the river directly, so the organisms that live in the river don't get it back. Non-consumptive use goes back to the river. Years ago when the southeast had yet another drought, people were prohibited from using graywater to irrigate their gardens. Downstream users counted on that water being treated at a wastwater plant and returned to the river so they could then use it. 

Depending on weather patterns where you live. lawns don't need water. Some "water efficient" turfgrass is efficient because it goes dormant in summer. It turns golden (not brown) and greens back up with the fall rains. People plant this stuff thinking it will be green without water, and when it turns brown the water the snot out of it. It takes a LOT of water to get it to go from gold to green. I usually water a small portion of my turf one time a summer. Maybe two, but usually one. I put down about two inches or so to fill the root zone, and that's it. It doesn't look like a golf course, and guess what? I don't have to mow that shit like I do from March through June when we get ample moisture falling from the sky. I do irrigate my food garden, but I have a clue how much I apply.

There's some really great technology that monitors soil moisture and other technology that applies water in a very uniform way and directly to the soil surface (or just below) to minimize drift and evaporation from spray before the water hits the soil and from the surface afterwards.

But none of this really matters. We are humans. We have a hard time changing if change is uncomfortable. I lost hope in humanity when they invented the disposable floor mop. Good ol' Ben Franklin had it right; "When the well runs dry, we will know the worth of water." Until then, keep your head buried in the sand and all will just work out OK.....


----------



## theusualsuspect (Apr 11, 2014)

it takes roughly 1,800 gallons of water to create a pound of beef. Cows eat alfalfa, corn, stuff you irrigate in the west to grow. EM is being logical, grow it somewhere else. Problem is a lot of those cuttings are being exported elsewhere. Which is why those new lawsuits in Arizona were filed. It’s illegal to export water, but exporting the crop that uses the water is technically ok. They’re commercial operations drilling deep wells and using big straws. Might be able to get 2-3 cuttings a year. With irrigation you’re guaranteed…5?


----------



## Roseldo (Aug 27, 2020)

As an upper basin holder of senior water rights, I constantly wonder what would happen if Colorado defined selling water downstream as beneficial use. I bet a lot of farmers around here could make more money selling their water to California than they do off of hay.
That would be my ultimate win-win: farmers get paid by Californians, and more water goes downstream.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

In Oregon, one way to put your water right to beneficial use is to lease it to the stream. Yep - you can get paid to give your water to the fish, and it won't risk your right being forfeit.

I am not positive, but I think you can also lease it for instream recreational flows.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Has everyone read Stegner's "Beyond the 100th Meridian" and Reisner's "Cadillac Desert"?



Will Amette said:


> Taking water from a river to irrigate some crops may allow for the water to return "to the environment." There are some return flows to the rivers, and they often carry agricultural chemistry. Fun stuff. What the plants use and what is evaporated from the soil surface doesn't go back to the river directly, so the organisms that live in the river don't get it back. Non-consumptive use goes back to the river. Years ago when the southeast had yet another drought, people were prohibited from using graywater to irrigate their gardens. Downstream users counted on that water being treated at a wastwater plant and returned to the river so they could then use it.


This blows my mind.

We need to put hay fields back into prairie grass and graze cattle directly.
Sure, you don't get quite as many cattle on an acre...but you use FAR less water _and_ diesel putting the pounds on the steer.
And the steer tastes better as well.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

MT4Runner said:


> Has everyone read Stegner's "Beyond the 100th Meridian" and Reisner's "Cadillac Desert"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not only tastes better, but grass-fed beef has more Omega-3 fatty acids. It ain't no salmon, but better than corn-fed.

Here's another weird one: grass-fed beef will never get a USDA grade (select, choice, or prime). Why? Because to get a grade, cattle has to be slaughtered before the age of 36 months. A grain-finished beef can get big enough in this time frame, but grass-fed beef grow more slowly. They can't get a grade.

OK, I apologize for helping this thread drift off topic. Time to row it back to the river.


----------



## spencerhenry (Jun 21, 2004)

Sorry, but grass fed beef is NOT nearly as good.
But then most “grass fed” beef is still finished in some sort of feedlot


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Corn fed beef is the best 🐴


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

spencerhenry said:


> Sorry, but grass fed beef is NOT nearly as good.
> But then most “grass fed” beef is still finished in some sort of feedlot


Honestly depends on the grass. Dry prairie grass has more minerals per ton and the beef tastes WAY better. Beef raised on irrigated grass or alfalfa has far less flavor.

I agree. It's almost impossible to develop any marbling or fat on grass, it just doesn't have enough calories/carbs. Finishing on grain is necessary for that final bloom.



caverdan said:


> Corn fed beef is the best 🐴


I'd argue that beef finished on a barley mix tastes a lot better than finished on mostly corn.


----------



## Dangerfield (May 28, 2021)

And, barley in beer brewing is also way better than corn. 

Where are we... I have heard that the money brokers in the Mid-East are pumping aquifers for their grain growing in the desert SW. They ran all of their ground water out in their country so they move to the USA where money/power speaks. Re-charging of these aquafers I assume is a long process when everything else in the area is drying up.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

Different people prefer different things. 

I don't eat a whole lot of meat, but as for USDA graded beef, I actually prefer choice to prime. It has less marbling, yes, and I think it has more flavor. I actually prefer non-graded grass-fed beef that isn't finished on grain to either choice or prime. I prefer elk to any of that, and for sure they ain't finished on grain. If you prefer grain-fed prime grade, that's what you should eat. "Better" is a personal judgement. We just happen to not agree on this one, and that's fine.

As far as impact on water use, cattle that are allowed to roam and eat non-irrigated grass are going to create less demand for irrigated agriculture, so on that one aspect, grass-fed is better.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Bison is better than all of it. Gives this paleface the winds tho, something awful.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

Bison is good too for sure.

A buddy in Alaska speaks very highly of both moose and caribou; I've never had either yet. Well, I might have had moose as an undergrad at the annual wildlife supper, but that was another lifetime and almost another planet.

OK. Sorry... back to talin' 'bout the evil water stealin' foreign alfalfa farmers.....


----------



## Dangerfield (May 28, 2021)

Just being vague so some sultan doesn't "dis-member" me. From the BUZZ of course.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Dangerfield said:


> Where are we... I have heard that the money brokers in the Mid-East are pumping aquifers for their grain growing in the desert SW. They ran all of their ground water out in their country so they move to the USA where money/power speaks. Re-charging of these aquafers I assume is a long process when everything else in the area is drying up.


Have likewise heard that from multiple sources.

That is mined fossil water. It could take THOUSANDS of years to recharge.

Back to my Cadillac Desert book recommendation, note Reisner commented that the cradle of civilization...Mesopotamia...was once known for its irrigated agriculture.
And is now a saline desert.

Are we repeating history?


----------



## Acheron (Apr 5, 2021)

Dangerfield said:


> Just being vague so some sultan doesn't "dis-member" me. From the BUZZ of course.


  

Two countries you better not bad mouth..S.A. an U.S.S.R...you see how many Russians have "fallen" out of windows or had other "accidents" happen in the last year? I'm sure it's just a coincidence they had recently spoken out about the war. Unreal how that journalist could be killed in an embassy in another country, certainly ordered by M.B.S. (the BS stands for Bone Saw), lured to his death in broad daylight, video proof, yet nothing happened. Absolutely crazy.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Acheron said:


> Two countries you better not bad mouth..S.A. an U.S.S.R...you see how many Russians have "fallen" out of windows or had other "accidents" happen in the last year? I'm sure it's just a coincidence they had recently spoken out about the war. Unreal how that journalist could be killed in an embassy in another country, certainly ordered by M.B.S. (the BS stands for Bone Saw), lured to his death in broad daylight, video proof, yet nothing happened. Absolutely crazy.


Almost as dangerous as being friends with the Clintons! 😝


----------



## ljpurvis85 (2 mo ago)

I listened to Cadillac Desert on audio. The benefit of listening is there are two additional sections at the end. There is a section that provides some additional information on what is/has happened since the time the book was written to around 2017. Then another that provides more information from 2017 to almost 2020. There are a lot of people that have made a lot of money on our water resources. We have taken a resource that was once basically free and turned it into a commodity that's market and availability will have major repercussions on many people and industries. The damming of a river, once an absolute necessity in its design given the technology and knowledge of the time, is no longer something that should be done. With that said, we absolutely (at least here in the West) must capture our water and save it for a sunny day.
The concept of damming a river is so ingrained that many will argue its necessity. I have a Civil Engineer buddy that was arguing with me the need for dams (energy, irrigation, flood control, recreation, etc.). He still holds to the argument, but I did ask him if an RFP came out that stated "Design and build a system that would provide irrigation, flood control, energy, and recreation but it cannot dam the river" could you do it. His answer was "Yes, it would be more expensive...but yes". We have the ability but the almighty dollar for the short-term win always seems to take the day.


----------



## ColoRobo (Jan 22, 2021)

Roseldo said:


> As an upper basin holder of senior water rights, I constantly wonder what would happen if Colorado defined selling water downstream as beneficial use. I bet a lot of farmers around here could make more money selling their water to California than they do off of hay.
> That would be my ultimate win-win: farmers get paid by Californians, and more water goes downstream.


Dying to know the math on this. Assuming you're a rancher or farmer. Could you really make a comparable profit/living off of selling your water rights downstream?


----------



## Roseldo (Aug 27, 2020)

ColoRobo said:


> Dying to know the math on this. Assuming you're a rancher or farmer. Could you really make a comparable profit/living off of selling your water rights downstream?


So, one irrigation share in our district in one acre-foot ≈ 300,000gallons. Some of our farmers are using 50-100 shares. Selling that downstream at $.01/gallon would be $300k income for someone with 100 shares.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

ljpurvis85 said:


> The concept of damming a river is so ingrained that many will argue its necessity. I have a Civil Engineer buddy that was arguing with me the need for dams (energy, irrigation, flood control, recreation, etc.). He still holds to the argument, but I did ask him if an RFP came out that stated "Design and build a system that would provide irrigation, flood control, energy, and recreation but it cannot dam the river" could you do it. His answer was "Yes, it would be more expensive...but yes". We have the ability but the almighty dollar for the short-term win always seems to take the day.


Thanks for the recommendation on the audio. That would be worthwhile to listen to on a long drive to a river put-in.

Another worthwhile read is "Deadbeat Dams" by Daniel P. Beard (US BuRec retired)



Roseldo said:


> So, one irrigation share in our district in one acre-foot ≈ 300,000gallons. Some of our farmers are using 50-100 shares. Selling that downstream at $.01/gallon would be $300k income for someone with 100 shares.


Without all the risks that go along with agriculture. Damn. Wow.
And could turn your land back into prairie grasses and still do sustainable grazing.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 24, 2004)

Here in Buena Vista we are going to max out water rights in 2030. The Town is talking about purchasing more water rights. I think the end of the paper water rights has been reached and it is a fools errand.


----------



## hysideguy67 (Jul 15, 2021)

IIRC, the first "wars" were over land and religion. The second round was religion and land. The next round is h2o. God help us if the 4th round is clean air


----------



## Taku (Apr 7, 2016)

For reading, go get a copy of "Topsoil and Civilization" - great book on how cultures either ignored or did not care about erosion and the ultimate collapse of that area.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Damming, downstream leasing, water marketing are all privatization schemes that divert water away from being a public trust resource that runs downhill to the sea, into atmospheric streams and rivers, and back into watersheds again, repeatedly.

Damning a river makes even less sense when acre feet of bank "storage" and evaporation are inputs into the mesmerized water hoarders' desk calculators.

The water is public trust resource. Privatization has no place here. Pipelines and lined canals are logical replacements for rivers in a private leasing regime.


----------



## canoepro (May 29, 2009)

kayakfreakus said:


> Super complicated issue, and while I agree golf courses and lawns don’t belong in a desert getting rid of all of them doesn’t dent the problem.
> 
> It’s 90% an agricultural and livestock issue. Subsidies and water rights back in the day all enable the problem. When a resource is over allocated from the start, it’s not set up for success. Glad I live at the top of the water supply and can’t wait to see the new Colorado river compact…
> 
> The war has been going on for a while now, even more prevalent with states posturing for the CRC negotiations.


It's actually 84% Ag.


----------



## Roseldo (Aug 27, 2020)

Droboat said:


> Damming, downstream leasing, water marketing are all privatization schemes that divert water away from being a public trust resource that runs downhill to the sea, into atmospheric streams and rivers, and back into watersheds again, repeatedly.
> 
> Damning a river makes even less sense when acre feet of bank "storage" and evaporation are inputs into the mesmerized water hoarders' desk calculators.
> 
> The water is public trust resource. Privatization has no place here. Pipelines and lined canals are logical replacements for rivers in a private leasing regime.


I don’t necessarily disagree about keeping water in streams, but in a world where using up water is deemed reclamation, downstream leasing at least keeps it flowing downstream for a bit.

The scariest aspect of all this conservation talk is the Upper Basin states talking about keeping their share. That’s the real nightmare. That’s taking the water out the earliest.


----------

