NM water rights dispute

[cantgetdrawn]

I saw this over on MM. Since there seems to be a different prospective on here I figure I'd see what people on this forum thought.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/17/rural-new-mexico-county-fights-feds-over-water-rights/

 

[cantgetdrawn]

double post

 

[BuzzH]

I dont think that article is well written or provides enough information for any level of confidence in what is going on.

I have routinely seen ranchers/BLM/FS fence off the spring sources to help keep livestock from pounding the springs. Its pretty typical to see a pipe from the fenced spring source to a stock tank of some sort.

I dont see how this situation cant be mitigated quite easily with some cooperation from all parties. It seems to me tha there should be an easy way to ensure the livestock have access to water while also trying to maintain riparian health via some fencing.

As far as the actual water right, thats a whole other can of worms there. Again without the proper information, there really is no way to determine who has what water right.

I really dislike this kind of "reporting" as theres way too much information that isnt known to sort otu who/what is right and wrong.

I still maintain that a healthy collaboration of interested parties, that are 100% committed to solving a problem, can surely solve this one.

The last thing that needs to happen is to have the sheriffs office involved, the county commissioners, and lawyers. They all typically provide nothing but political grandstanding, and one big pain in the ass to those that really do want to solve a problem.

 

[sbhooper]

I have been in that area many times. I lived near there for 10 years. Water is indeed scarce much of the time and so what is there, gets used heavily by the animals. The Forest Service does what they do arbitrarily with no input from other users and so creates a conflict. The deer and elk will continue to jump the fence and trample the areas of good water and no one will care. The FS only locked out the cattle by building the good fence.

If they truly want to protect the stream area, then they would also have to keep the other big animals out of it. This is just another example of bureaucrats and environmentalists making decisions with no regard for other involved parties.

I really don't see how there can be a dispute over the water and land legally, as it is on FS land.

 

[1_pointer]

I have been in that area many times. I lived near there for 10 years. Water is indeed scarce much of the time and so what is there, gets used heavily by the animals. The Forest Service does what they do arbitrarily with no input from other users and so creates a conflict. The deer and elk will continue to jump the fence and trample the areas of good water and no one will care. The FS only locked out the cattle by building the good fence.

If they truly want to protect the stream area, then they would also have to keep the other big animals out of it. This is just another example of bureaucrats and environmentalists making decisions with no regard for other involved parties.

I really don't see how there can be a dispute over the water and land legally, as it is on FS land.

Not uncommon at all for a private citizen to have a water right on public land. That said, any new water right filings (if caught) on federal land will/should be constested unless the agency is given at least a share of the right.

 

[sbhooper]

On the western slope of the Sacramento Mountains, the town of Alamogordo sealed up all the stream water rights many years ago. It was a smart move on their part, but people that bought land later not knowing that, really got an eye opener.