Comments by "ke6gwf - Ben Blackburn" (@ke6gwf) on "8 News Now — Las Vegas"
channel.
-
3
-
@hydroponichomesteader6852 I assume that you don't eat any vegetables, beef, fruit, almonds, rice, etc grown in California?
If so, you are contributing to the problem, because most of the water California uses is producing things used by the rest of the world.
I mean, you are using YouTube, which is based in California, so all the water used by the workers who run this website is part of providing this service.
If California reduces water use, the rest of the world gets reduced food and services from California.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sakotyr it's not illegal to collect rainwater, but someone else likely owns the Rights to the water, so it's not yours to collect.
Water rights are just like mineral rights or oil rights, and are often sold separately from the property itself, and so unless you also own the water rights, the water isn't yours.
It's the same as drilling for oil or mining gold if someone else has those Rights.
In the early days out west, it was the ranchers and farmers that literary fought over water rights, until finally they divided everything up.
So if I had a little cabin with a big spring behind it, and the rancher down the hill needed water for his herd, I might say that I needed whatever water would flow through a 2 inch pipe, and I would sell the rest of the water to him.
If that was Deeded back in the 1800s, it would still be legal today.
In discussions of water rights you will often hear mention of Elder Rights. Those are the original water rights before water agencies were formed, and it's how a lot of farmers get their water, especially out in the desert.
But the farmers and ranchers were very water greedy, and so they started going around and buying up the Surface Water Rights from all the landowners in a valley or watershed, thus giving them exclusive rights to all the water in the streams.
Then as towns began forming, the towns would create water agencies who would buy up more water rights, from landowners, and also from ranchers and farmers.
Come to modern days, and very few parcels have the deed to the surface water, not because anyone has taken anything or because the government has taken control, but rather because some previous owner sold off the water rights for a pretty penny.
So while it may not seem fair to not be able to do whatever you want with the surface water on your own property, take it up with the person who sold that right to the highest bidder.
It's possible to repurchase those rights, but water is valuable and so few do become of how much it costs.
But just remember that owning property consists of many layers, and they can be sold separately and then you are bound by what the deed says when you buy the property..
And if you think of it from the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of money to buy the water rights, if you are taking rainwater and preventing it from flowing down into their reservoir to supply the city with water, it's no different from their perspective as if you pumped it out of their lake.
It is still taking water that they own and rely on.
And yes, maybe owning water is wrong, but that's how cities get a reliable water supply, by owning the rights to enough watershed to supply their needs, and if everyone could take whatever fell on their property, the towns would no longer get any water.
It would be nice if they allowed a 55 gallon drum full, but again, they paid for the rights for that water too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rabidsamfan I agree with you on several points, but let's be honest, water rights is the least of the bad things still being done to the indigineous peoples, and if the root of them being treated like children who have to be controlled was changed, the water rights issues would be worked out as well, since the treaties would have included the right to use the water on their land.
It is true that some water rights have been taken by without consent or compensation, but that's in the minority.
Generally the land was bought up, and then resold without the water rights, or they were purchased directly.
It may be true that allowing water and mineral rights to be handled separate from the property may not be "fair", but modern society would not be able to function otherwise, because that's what farmers rely on to feed the world, and what cities rely on to supply water reliably.
So if you are unable to collect rainwater from your roof, but you can turn a faucet and get water from the very water agency that is telling you not to collect rainwater, you have nothing to complain about, unless you would rather rely completely on the rainwater and not have the safe and reliable water at your tap.
It's also not "fair" that the government can claim imminent domain to private property to build freeways and roads, but without that ability society could not exist.
And again, it's your choice whether to buy a piece of land with water rights or not, so if you build your house on land that does not have the water rights anymore, that's totally on you, and you can't blame it on anyone else.
Just like if you bought land with a conservation easement on it, and then complained that you couldn't build on it.
It's all in the Deed, and different types of Deeds have different uses available for the land.
It's a lot like zoning in a city. Different types allow you to do different things with the land, and so you buy what you need for what you want to do with it.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@dmannevada5981 wow, a reasonable and well informed comment on YouTube!? I should play the lottery too lol
You seem to be more familiar with the details than I am, sounds like you have done your homework.
And yes, it makes sense that ag uses more water, but I think I included expanded ag upstream, but I probably should emphasize it more.
And yes, there is the little detail of the water allocation being overly optimistic, but they were able to handle it through 2000 or so with excess, and then there was a reduction in flow (returning to average it seems...) but everyone hoped that it was temporary and the water would return, and they had years to do something about it.
Well. Years are here and gone, and now they can't pretend it's not a problem, and so we will see how badly they handle it... Lol
The other factor however is that a lot of the areas where this water is used, ARE experiencing drought conditions, thus needing more water, so drought is playing into the story, even if it's from the other side.
1
-
@bill1usmc Ahh, so you are one of the types who always is moving the goalposts to deal with inconvenient facts, because you can never be wrong...
You are correct that the lake reached a higher level in '83, but that was the choice of the operators, and up until 2000, they were releasing more water than the contracts required, and intentionally keeping the water below the spillway by sending more through the power plant.
So in 2000, there was enough water flowing to go over the spillway, but they used the valves to maintain the level that they consider as "full", partly because it's the best level for recreation, boat ramps etc.
To put it into perspective, the lake is now lower than it's ever been since it was originally filled in the 30s.
1
-
@Igrowbigbuds-b3q you are correct, they only tested the spillway once, the rest of the time, up until 2000, they sent more water through the power plant to maintain the water level at the depth they call "full", but there was enough water they COULD have let it go over the spillway.
Prior to then, they were releasing more water than they are required to because they had a surplus, but there is not enough water since 2000 to refill the lake and also supply the contracts, so it's been steadily decreasing since.
Remember that Lake Powell is upstream, so Mead doesn't have to deal with storm surge or anything, just a planned steady outflow from Powell, and the power plant and flow valves are easily able to handle that flow, so they don't need to use the spillway.
And why run water over the spillway they can use to make power?
1
-
@bill1usmc so you admit that it peaked once in '83 because of extreme river conditions, and went ABOVE full.
And that is the only time in the history of the lake that it got that high.
So by definition, overfull, using the emergency spillway and actually damaging the dam, should not be considered the definition of Full.
And it's exactly events like that which damage the dam that made them more conservative in future years and always leave a few feet of room for flood surge, and so consider it "full" at a lower level.
They are required by the downstream water rights to release a certain minimum flow from the lake, and prior to 2000 they were able to release more than the minimum each year.
After 2000, the water right requirements have exceed the river inflow every year, so it has never been able to refill and steadily drops.
Water rights are one of the most sacred rights in the US, and it's only in times of extreme drought that water rights can be reduced, so they are legally required to release that minimum amount every year.
If you are a farmer and you have the elder rights to a certain amount of water available to you, are you going to use less water and thus make less money on your land, or will you grow the highest value crop you can on your land with the water you have available?
You can complain about the almond groves, but if you owned that land would you not grow what's most profitable and utilize all the water you can buy or have rights to?
Remember that most of the California almond groves buy the water from the water districts, and it doesn't come from the Colorado River.
1