quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
If you have a point why don't you make it instead of posting puerile snarks. If you think "water right" means something other than the right to some quantity of water by an individual or entity, post it with validation.

Out west water rights is not tied to property but instead to historic usage.

This is not true.
The title to my land (which is patented) explicitly defines the water under the surface as mine and is validated by the signature of the president of the u.s.


In this case SLC has rights to rainfall runoff in its boundaries up to some set amount but downstream entities have rights to the rest.

Aside from the great salt lake what is down stream from slc which would be entitled to water.

So when the car wash diverted large quantities out of that flow they opened SLC up to all sorts of legal trouble.

Large quantities????? we are talking about the rain water catch of the top of a building. In this case 2500 gallons. Water is normally calculated in acre feet(that is the amount of water in one acre,43,560 square feet one foot deep or about 325,000 gallons). The city of slc is about 110 sq. miles with a rainfall of about 15 inches a year, so not counting the snow fall roughly 24 trillion gallons.

SLC is using up part of their yearly allocation for the car wash's cistern now.
Perhaps you might want to calculate the exact percentage for us.

Actually it is true, it's called prior appropriation and is based on Wyoming v Colorado and various laws passed to codify it.

Just because the cistern holds 2500 gallons doesn't mean that's all that will be diverted. and it is irrelevant, the people downstream own those 2500 gallons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If you want to know who has rights to SLC's water call them.

as to the rest it remains irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If you want to know who has rights to SLC's water call them.

as to the rest it remains irrelevant.

Thank you for your reasoned, cogent, and well researched response.[8|]
As always your discussions are enlightning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If you want to know who has rights to SLC's water call them.

as to the rest it remains irrelevant.

Thank you for your reasoned, cogent, and well researched response.[8|]
As always your discussions are enlightning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If you want to know who has rights to SLC's water call them.

as to the rest it remains irrelevant.

Thank you for your reasoned, cogent, and well researched response.[8|]
As always your discussions are enlightning.

Why precisely should I do your research for you? Are you so lazy you can't google? If it matter one bit I would have done the research but it is entirely irrelevant except to satisfy your curiousity and it may surprise you to discover the rest of the world does not exist to satisfy your whims.

quote:

Maybe you should learn what a water right is in this case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I explained to you in detail what a prior appropriation water right is and its basis in law and the original SCOTUS ruling that codified it. What more could you possibly want?


No you did not explane anything in detail you simply listed the scotus dicision in wyoming v colorado.
You cited wyoming v colorado which the supreme court ruled on the division of water of a river that flows through two states and the relative amounts of water from that river to those two states it does not direct it's attention to intrastate division or rights to wate. It most certainly does not address rain water but only water that is in the river at the time of allocation.


Actually it is true, it's called prior appropriation and is based on Wyoming v Colorado and various laws passed to codify it.


You have failed to show any such validation

Just because the cistern holds 2500 gallons doesn't mean that's all that will be diverted. and it is irrelevant, the people downstream own those 2500 gallons.

You have failed to mention just how much water could be collected in that cistern on a yearly bassis nor have you indicated who is downstream from slc except the great salt lake who might be entitled to water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from? As to the rest I told you the facts and you expressed disbelief. That doesn't change the facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from? As to the rest I told you the facts and you expressed disbelief. That doesn't change the facts.

Your interpretation of wyoming v colorado would seem to make all private water wells illegal.
You have only expressed your opinion but have yet to offer any validation.
If you are are unable or unwilling to do so then we will just have to agree to disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from? As to the rest I told you the facts and you expressed disbelief. That doesn't change the facts.

Your interpretation of wyoming v colorado would seem to make all private water wells illegal.
You have only expressed your opinion but have yet to offer any validation.
If you are are unable or unwilling to do so then we will just have to agree to disagree.

A new water well in the western states that use prior appropriation to allocate water rights would need to use an existing water right otherwise it would be subject to litigation by the rights holders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/07.10/rainwater.html

so how then do you own your yard/house?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from? As to the rest I told you the facts and you expressed disbelief. That doesn't change the facts.

Your interpretation of wyoming v colorado would seem to make all private water wells illegal.
You have only expressed your opinion but have yet to offer any validation.
If you are are unable or unwilling to do so then we will just have to agree to disagree.

A new water well in the western states that use prior appropriation to allocate water rights would need to use an existing water right otherwise it would be subject to litigation by the rights holders.

Perhaps if you were to read this you might gain a fuller understanding of what you think you are talking about.

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/appsystems.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from? As to the rest I told you the facts and you expressed disbelief. That doesn't change the facts.

quote:

Read the article yourself it is very clear. You remain wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

The Corporations should push for a tax on rainfall. A residential (definitely not a corporate tax) tax on how much rainfall hits your property every year. Call it the Impact Tax. The Corporations can come up with a formula based on how much land you have, multiplied by whatever number they say is the average rainfall in inches (rounded up). That will allow the Insurance Corporations to offer a new policy called "Impact Protection", where they'll cover a small percentage of any 'overage' of your "Average Impact Tax Rate". Then the Corporations can push for Mandatory "Impact Protection" policies, which the politicians will eventually come around on, after a semblance of healthy debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from? As to the rest I told you the facts and you expressed disbelief. That doesn't change the facts.

quote:

Read the article yourself it is very clear. You remain wrong.

This from the cite I posted for you indicates that riparian rights differ from rainwater...please note the bolded part.
What is it that I am wrong about?

Riparian water rights, therefore, occur as a result of landownership. A landowner who owns land that physically touches a river, stream, pond, or lake has an equal right to the use of water from that source. This water right, however, is only a usufructuary right and not a property right in the water. The water may be used as it passes through the property of the land owner, but it cannot be unreasonably detained or diverted, and it must be returned to the stream from which it was obtained. The use of riparian water rights is generally regulated by "reasonable use." Reasonable use allows for the consumptive use of water, but what actually constitutes reasonable use has varied widely from state to state and continues to evolve.

Only certain waters are subject to riparian rights. Riparian rights only attach to water in watercourses and not to diffuse surface waters. Diffuse waters are waters that are spread over the surface, where as a watercourse has a definite natural channel and a bed with banks. Diffuse waters are generally storm or flood drainage, and these do not constitute riparian rights.