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.

quote:

These rights are entitlements to a specific amount of water, for a specified use, at a specific location with a definite date of priority.

quote:

quote:
Here you say that the water that comes off of the roof goes into the river which slc has riparian rights to. A riparian right is right to water in a body of water that touches your land. The article is quite clear about what riparian rights mean.
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:

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.

quote:

In western states, there are few restrictions on who can hold an appropriative water right. Therefore, both private and public entities hold rights. An appropriative right does not depend on land ownership, but some states do require that the water is appurtenant to the land on which it is used. In general, appropriative water rights are transferable property. There are, however, three major requirements which inhibit the transfer of an appropriative water right:

Rules prohibiting the severance of water right from the land on which the water is appurtenant to;
Showing that there will be no injury to other appropriators; and
Establishing the extent of the water right for transfer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Whiplash, if you look at my post on page 1 ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm bored with this. If you think SLC is wrong you're free to go help the car wash sue them. You'll lose but at least you'll stop spouting confused nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm bored with this. If you think SLC is wrong you're free to go help the car wash sue them. You'll lose but at least you'll stop spouting confused nonsense.

"I'm bored with this"...appears to be code for "I have both feet in my mouth and need to go find a prybar".
The car wash had solved the problem before this thread began.
I have cited the law you have posted not only confused nonsense but also changing positions.

quote:

"I'm bored with this"...appears to be code for "I have both feet in my mouth and need to go find a prybar".
The car wash had solved the problem before this thread began.
I have cited the law you have posted not only confused nonsense but also changing positions.

The car wash "solved" the problem by being allocated part of SLC water rights (obviously a prior appropriation right).

Clearly not a prior appropriation right because they do not meet the requirements listed below

quote:

:

These rights are entitlements to a specific amount of water, for a specified use, at a specific location with a definite date of priority.

I never changed position.

Here you say one thing.

quote:

:
Here you say that the water that comes off of the roof goes into the river which slc has riparian rights to. A riparian right is right to water in a body of water that touches your land. The article is quite clear about what riparian rights mean.
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.

Here you say the opposite

quote:

SLC in the original article is dealing with a prior appropriation type water rights issue not riparian.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Who knows- maybe I will sell the mineral rights I own on my house.

Yup- I own them- unlike most of my county.

You only own them if you own your property outright (no mortgage) and exercise your patent on that land

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Who knows- maybe I will sell the mineral rights I own on my house.

Yup- I own them- unlike most of my county.

You only own them if you own your property outright (no mortgage) and exercise your patent on that land

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I never changed position.

Here you say one thing.

quote:

:
Here you say that the water that comes off of the roof goes into the river which slc has riparian rights to. A riparian right is right to water in a body of water that touches your land. The article is quite clear about what riparian rights mean.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

Here you say the opposite

quote:

SLC in the original article is dealing with a prior appropriation type water rights issue not riparian.

This is usually the point where an adult admits that they were mistaken and apologizes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I never changed position.

Here you say one thing.

quote:

:
Here you say that the water that comes off of the roof goes into the river which slc has riparian rights to. A riparian right is right to water in a body of water that touches your land. The article is quite clear about what riparian rights mean.

That is not the post the below is in response to. The post I was responding to was this

quote:

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.

Since the colorado v wyoming case is about the distribution of riparian rights and nothing else. It would follow that you are using it to bolster your position that slc was exercising it's riparian rights.

The post directly above it.

As a matter of fact the material you claim I responded to in your quote above is simply made up since you never used riparian until after the post of mine you're quoting out of context.

They are your words...first you claim that slc is exercising riparian rights then you assert that you are not.

Plerase cease trying to put words in my mouth.


Your words fit so well there is no need for me to do anything except post your own words showing that you have both feet stuffed firmly into your mouth.
Please do try and have a nice day.

quote:

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.

Here you say the opposite

quote:

SLC in the original article is dealing with a prior appropriation type water rights issue not riparian.

This is usually the point where an adult admits that they were mistaken and apologizes

quote:

Plerase cease trying to put words in my mouth.

With both of your feet in there along with your own words there is no room for me to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Wyoming v Colorado ruling is the basis for prior appropriation water rights

Wrong again. If you had actually taken the time to read the actual case

http://supreme.justia.com/us/259/419/case.html#455

You would have noticed that both wyoming and colorado governed their water rights for many years on the bassis of prior appropriation,and long before the case cited came to the courts. The case cited adjudacates how much of the water goes to whom based on the long history of prior appropriation in practice in both colorado and wyoming.
This is my statement:

quote:

Let me make my self clear in what I am trying to say. If a landowner has land on which the water right has not been sold (sold not appropriated) by the act of enforcing your patent on the land the water is yours to do with as you choose.

Which part of that statement are you arguing with or are you just posting to see your name in ink?


Please stick to the real facs from now and try to use the quote feature.

When one cannot refute the facts they will usually find fault with spelling errors or posting etiquite to make their point.
It is clear that you have reached that point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Wyoming v Colorado made prior appropriation the standard between the western states.

No it did not. It adjudicated the prior appropriation rights of wyoming and colorado to a riparian source, the laramie river.
The States that have a hybrid system (that is both riparian rights and prior appropriation rights) include California, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Which would leave idaho, montana, wyoming, colorado, utah, nevada, arizona and new mexico as those states which recognize only prior appropriation law.

It is the basis for the various interstate water deals in the west. I do take notice that you are no longer claiming it has anything to do with riparian rights.

As I have mentioned previously it adjudicated prior appropriation to a riparian source, the laramie river.


I'm not attacking you because I've got nothing I'm requesting that you use standard quoting techniques so your posts are readable and my replies are not quite so annoying to try and get to make sense, it is not my fault that you can't tell the difference between a polite request and an attack.

You managed to be able to understand my post for four pages, now that your arguements have been found wanting you resort to whining about how I post.

quote:

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

quote:

So when the car wash diverted large quantities out of that flow they opened SLC up to all sorts of legal trouble. SLC is using up part of their yearly allocation for the car wash's cistern now.

quote:

An appropriative right is generally based upon physical control and beneficial use of the water. These rights are entitlements to a specific amount of water, for a specified use, at a specific location with a definite date of priority.

quote:

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:

Did you fail to read the entire article?
riparian rights only apply to certain waterways not to all waterways and not at all to watersheds. Prior appropriation is an entirely different way of assigning rights to water and it does include watersheds and it is how water rights are determined in most of the western US. SLC in the original article is dealing with a prior appropriation type water rights issue not riparian.

quote:

Where the hell do you think water in rivers comes from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Wyoming v Colorado made prior appropriation the standard between the western states.

No it did not. It adjudicated the prior appropriation rights of wyoming and colorado to a riparian source, the laramie river.
The States that have a hybrid system (that is both riparian rights and prior appropriation rights) include California, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Which would leave idaho, montana, wyoming, colorado, utah, nevada, arizona and new mexico as those states which recognize only prior appropriation law.

It is the basis for the various interstate water deals in the west. I do take notice that you are no longer claiming it has anything to do with riparian rights.

As I have mentioned previously it adjudicated prior appropriation to a riparian source, the laramie river.


I'm not attacking you because I've got nothing I'm requesting that you use standard quoting techniques so your posts are readable and my replies are not quite so annoying to try and get to make sense, it is not my fault that you can't tell the difference between a polite request and an attack.

You managed to be able to understand my post for four pages, now that your arguements have been found wanting you resort to whining about how I post.

quote:

quote:

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

Does not "downstream" indicate riparian water?

quote:

quote:

So when the car wash diverted large quantities out of that flow they opened SLC up to all sorts of legal trouble. SLC is using up part of their yearly allocation for the car wash's cistern now.

The appropriative right is governed as is noted in the blm cite:

quote:

An appropriative right is generally based upon physical control and beneficial use of the water. These rights are entitlements to a specific amount of water, for a specified use, at a specific location with a definite date of priority.

quote:

quote:

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.

Not according to the citation from the blm (bureau of land management). The prior approiator is entitled only to its "specific amount of water" it is not open ended. All who come after the prior appropiator are entitled to the specific amount of water that they appropriate (use productively) that is in excess of what the prior appropriator has taken. The first appropriator cannot increase his prior appropriation at the expense of the later appropriator.

quote:

quote:

Did you fail to read the entire article?
riparian rights only apply to certain waterways not to all waterways and not at all to watersheds. Prior appropriation is an entirely different way of assigning rights to water and it does include watersheds and it is how water rights are determined in most of the western US. SLC in the original article is dealing with a prior appropriation type water rights issue not riparian.

No it is not. SLC is dealing with a prior appropriation of a riparian source and claiming that rainwater is part of that source which you stated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Wyoming v Colorado made prior appropriation the standard between the western states.

No it did not. It adjudicated the prior appropriation rights of wyoming and colorado to a riparian source, the laramie river.
The States that have a hybrid system (that is both riparian rights and prior appropriation rights) include California, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Which would leave idaho, montana, wyoming, colorado, utah, nevada, arizona and new mexico as those states which recognize only prior appropriation law.

It is the basis for the various interstate water deals in the west. I do take notice that you are no longer claiming it has anything to do with riparian rights.

As I have mentioned previously it adjudicated prior appropriation to a riparian source, the laramie river.


I'm not attacking you because I've got nothing I'm requesting that you use standard quoting techniques so your posts are readable and my replies are not quite so annoying to try and get to make sense, it is not my fault that you can't tell the difference between a polite request and an attack.

You managed to be able to understand my post for four pages, now that your arguements have been found wanting you resort to whining about how I post.

Actually my annoyance got to the point where I made a polite request after 4 pages of your insults and difficult posting style.

What insult have I posted to you?

quote:

quote:

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

Does not "downstream" indicate riparian water?

No. It was simple shorthand for all the rights holders who have right to the water after the priority rights holder. Since water flows downstream that's where those users usually are. Note that you yourself admit Utah uses Prior appropriation so no discussion of riparian rights is on topic,

Riparian means water that is in a lake, stream or river etc....somewhat different than riparian rights.
In the case cited wyoming v colorado it is colorado which is upstream from wyoming on the laramie river and if you had read the cite on wyoming v colorado you would have known that colorado was seeking to divert water upstream from wyoming which had the prior appropriative right. The supreme court ruled in favor of wyoming's prior appropriation and limited the amount that colorado could remove upstream from wyoming.

quote:

quote:

So when the car wash diverted large quantities out of that flow they opened SLC up to all sorts of legal trouble. SLC is using up part of their yearly allocation for the car wash's cistern now.

The appropriative right is governed as is noted in the blm cite:

quote:

An appropriative right is generally based upon physical control and beneficial use of the water. These rights are entitlements to a specific amount of water, for a specified use, at a specific location with a definite date of priority.

And if all the water is in use? Which is likely the case in SLC. Then diverting any water into a cistern is effectively stealing from some other entity with rights to the water. That's fairly obviously what is going on with teh car wash.

You really need to go back and read the section on prior appropriation.
SLC would have had a prior appropriation but as I have posted they cannot appropriate more than they use and that once appropriated they cannot increase that appropriation at the detriment of later appropriators. You are making the assumption that slc was the size it is today when it made it's first appropriation.

quote:

quote:

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.

Not according to the citation from the blm (bureau of land management). The prior approiator is entitled only to its "specific amount of water" it is not open ended. All who come after the prior appropiator are entitled to the specific amount of water that they appropriate (use productively) that is in excess of what the prior appropriator has taken. The first appropriator cannot increase his prior appropriation at the expense of the later appropriator.

You're assuming the water was not already in use, that is almost never true.

SLC was not born full grown.

quote:

quote:

Did you fail to read the entire article?
riparian rights only apply to certain waterways not to all waterways and not at all to watersheds. Prior appropriation is an entirely different way of assigning rights to water and it does include watersheds and it is how water rights are determined in most of the western US. SLC in the original article is dealing with a prior appropriation type water rights issue not riparian.

No it is not. SLC is dealing with a prior appropriation of a riparian source and claiming that rainwater is part of that source which you stated.

There are no riparian water rtights in Utah the state is exclusively prior appropriation. Your own source says so.

Now was that so hard?

You are the one who made the case that slc was using a riparian source, that is water that exists in a river,lake, stream etc. (not to be confused with riparian rights which is a form of water use adjudication).
I am quite aware that utah is a prior appropriation state. Remember I am the one who listed which states were hybrid and which are p/a states.