The fight for Montana water- article

[SAJ-99]

Article on Montana’s water that brings a lot of discussions together: the current drought, growth in the west, various interest groups, and of course, politics and money.
https://www.hatchmag.com/articles/fight-montanas-water/7715303

 

[Irrelevant]

Article on Montana’s water that brings a lot of discussions together: the current drought, growth in the west, various interest groups, and of course, politics and money.
https://www.hatchmag.com/articles/fight-montanas-water/7715303

I can see both sides. There are innovative ways to solve the problem that the article didn't address.
1. Capture snow melt
2. Switch to hydraulically connected groundwater
3. Reverse canals to pressurized systems that operated bottom up instead of to down gravity systems.
4. Buy senior rights and change use
5. If MT hasn't addressed domestic exempt use for individual homes, it's should start there.


Haven't the tribes flexed any muscle on inchoate rights?

 

[diamond hitch]

Thirty years ago I remember an article on the hundreds of reservoirs built by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 30s that were no longer deemed safe. That might be a place to start on the snowmelt issues.

 

[diamond hitch]

Another thing to consider in real estate development is density. Once the parcels get so small, a sewage system and water system should be required.

we can address the water volume available and in planning when a basin has approached the limit its time to say it is full. You can do that in bars why not residential housing.

I've spent a career fighting over imaginary evaporation, it's time to address reality. There are places in Montana that one house per 40 acres is borderline too many.

 

[SAJ-99]

I can see both sides. There are innovative ways to solve the problem that the article didn't address.
1. Capture snow melt
2. Switch to hydraulically connected groundwater
3. Reverse canals to pressurized systems that operated bottom up instead of to down gravity systems.
4. Buy senior rights and change use
5. If MT hasn't addressed domestic exempt use for individual homes, it's should start there.


Haven't the tribes flexed any muscle on inchoate rights?

Good ideas, but I'm not sure it is that simple. Every drop captured is a drop that doesn't go downstream. It really doesn't matter is the drop is above ground or below. That is much of the fight between states. The cause is more people need more water and there is huge variability in rainfall/snowall. What is interesting in the article is the conflict between Ranchers who use the water to irrigate and guides who's living taking people fishing and which one has the biggest pull in the state.

 

[Irrelevant]

Good ideas, but I'm not sure it is that simple. Every drop captured is a drop that doesn't go downstream. It really doesn't matter is the drop is above ground or below. That is much of the fight between states. The cause is more people need more water and there is huge variability in rainfall/snowall. What is interesting in the article is the conflict between Ranchers who use the water to irrigate and guides who's living taking people fishing and which one has the biggest pull in the state.

You can't go back in time and general water rights law isn't going to change. Those are effectively the tools in the tool box.

 

[SAJ-99]

You can't go back in time and general water rights law isn't going to change. Those are effectively the tools in the tool box.

Laws can change. They do all the time and did in 1973 specific to Montana water. It isn't an issue of laws or water itself. Water rights are about beneficial use. Legally no one "owns" the water they just "use" it. Like wildlife. The article points out that every drop of some creeks is diverted. I guess the trout have no "beneficial use" rights. It all boils down to not enough water the multitude of uses and amounts the human population requires. Interstate water battles will be more common and the Supreme court will need to create some clarity in an area that is murky. The historical practice in Montana of making a small earthen dam to create a stock pond have already increased in complexity so that it is almost impossible to do it without DNRC approval. Man-made mountain lakes will just increase the conflict given a lot are on federal land and need to be managed because dams don't last forever.

 

[JEL]

I spent a career in water rights. Extremely complex issue and I don’t see things changing much in MT anytime soon. One thing we should possibly be looking at seriously is increased storage. Not just surface water but groundwater as well. Developing riparian areas and draining wetlands, beaver dams and flood plains has greatly inhibited our ability to react to or weather droughts. Now even when we have good snowpack we are losing it early and it just sails on down channelized rivers and is gone. No easy answers exist.

 

[BirdManMike]

I spent a career in water rights. Extremely complex issue and I don’t see things changing much in MT anytime soon. One thing we should possibly be looking at seriously is increased storage. Not just surface water but groundwater as well. Developing riparian areas and draining wetlands, beaver dams and flood plains has greatly inhibited our ability to react to or weather droughts. Now even when we have good snowpack we are losing it early and it just sails on down channelized rivers and is gone. No easy answers exist.

Spot on.

 

[Timothy_Ecc]

I spent a career in water rights. Extremely complex issue and I don’t see things changing much in MT anytime soon. One thing we should possibly be looking at seriously is increased storage. Not just surface water but groundwater as well. Developing riparian areas and draining wetlands, beaver dams and flood plains has greatly inhibited our ability to react to or weather droughts. Now even when we have good snowpack we are losing it early and it just sails on down channelized rivers and is gone. No easy answers exist.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Irrelevant]

Laws can change. They do all the time and did in 1973 specific to Montana water. It isn't an issue of laws or water itself. Water rights are about beneficial use. Legally no one "owns" the water they just "use" it. Like wildlife. The article points out that every drop of some creeks is diverted. I guess the trout have no "beneficial use" rights. It all boils down to not enough water the multitude of uses and amounts the human population requires. Interstate water battles will be more common and the Supreme court will need to create some clarity in an area that is murky. The historical practice in Montana of making a small earthen dam to create a stock pond have already increased in complexity so that it is almost impossible to do it without DNRC approval. Man-made mountain lakes will just increase the conflict given a lot are on federal land and need to be managed because dams don't last forever.

While JEL spent a career in water rights, I'm only a bit over a decade into them, but I certainly understand how they work. And while "laws might change", I'd bet both my children that the general structure of western water law will not change. Hell MT can't even get reasonable elk seasons due to pressures from Ag, try "taking" their water and see how that goes.

If there's not enough water for the uses, then you can buy people out, or you can try to capture and store more seasonal water. The tribes in the PNW were able to ligate under treaties that salmon = water. WA passed many instream flow rights in various basins since the 1980s, but none of those are senior to the vast majority of the users. If you want some clarity on existing rights, adjudicate, that'll only take a generation or so but you may find that some rights currently being exercised are no longer valid.

 

[RobG]

Making tough decisions: Southwest Montana farmers and ranchers forge through drought

“As far as I can remember, this is the driest it’s been at this time of year."

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

The U.S. Geological Survey reported that flows in the Gallatin River were 45% of normal near Gallatin Gateway and 16% of normal near Logan on Thursday. Flows in the Jefferson River were 16% of normal by Three Forks and 17% of normal by Twin Bridges.

Flows in the Ruby River were 10% of normal by Twin Bridges and 36% of normal by Alder. The Shields River near Livingston was running at 13% of normal. The Missouri River by Toston was at 27% of normal.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

@neffa3 @JEL and my wife are saints for working in the water world. Sometimes idk how my wife deals with some of farmers and lawyers and canal companies and tribes. Everybody seems to have the answers and everyone of em is looking to screw others. Then don't get me started on all the stupid leases these guys sign and then mother nature doesn't come thru and then they back out of them. Its war right now in southeast Idaho.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

@neffa3 @JEL and my wife are saints for working in the water world. Sometimes idk how my wife deals with some of farmers and lawyers and canal companies and tribes. Everybody seems to have the answers and everyone of em is looking to screw others. Then don't get me started on all the stupid leases these guys sign and then mother nature doesn't come thru and then they back out of them. Its war right now in southeast Idaho.

Not to mention the doofus's on some of these water district boards and canal boards that have no clue about anything to do with water, but hey their on a board so their important.

 

[Nameless Range]

Though it would take a monumental amount of cash, I wonder how much proper enforcement of water rights would help in water shortages across Montana. It is certainly true that more water is allocated across many montana streams than flows in them during those water rights' periods of use, but I also know a lot of shenanigans occur along our streams and in use of Montana's water above and beyond what is owned and when it is allowed to be used.

I have seen folks on social media sharing this article, calling for minimum streamflow legislation. Though it is true that Ag is a big reason for our inadequate flows, I believe it is a fact that such a legislation would be a taking, and a massive one, and oversimplifies a complex issue. (Say minimum streamflow leg as proposed, requires 25% the typical annual flow to remain in the stream. So if a stream is flowing at 16%, as the Jefferson currently is, then no one gets to irrigate?)

Maybe we are just F'd. I am a believer in the tiny wins, no matter how unsatisfactory and seemingly short falling in the big picture. The instream rights purchased here and there, the collaborative successes of the Big Hole, or the Blackfoot Challenge, the changes in irrigation techniques that limit EVT, etc. One may rightfully say that those are tiny drops in a woefully inadequate bucket. But I wonder how realistic the seductive idea of minimum streamflow legislation is, and how it could backfire monumentally. I do wonder if we have massive fish die offs in places like the Big Hole, the Jefferson, the Blackfoot, etc, if that would cause the crossing of a threshold, where what was once unlikely could become plausible.

Most basins in MT are closed, and rancher Bob has a snowball's chance in hell of getting additional water exceeding what he already owns. That said, a 100 home subdivision can go in right next door, every one of the lots driving an exempt well that allows up to 10 acre feet per year(never monitored). Aquifers and surface waters are often related, and I wonder if we don't get that under control, it will all be for naught in some areas anyway.

 

[Irrelevant]

@neffa3 @JEL and my wife are saints for working in the water world. Sometimes idk how my wife deals with some of farmers and lawyers and canal companies and tribes. Everybody seems to have the answers and everyone of em is looking to screw others. Then don't get me started on all the stupid leases these guys sign and then mother nature doesn't come thru and then they back out of them. Its war right now in southeast Idaho.

I've found that the general practice of cutting off ones nose in spite their face is all too common in water rights. Both users and regulators are guilty.

 

[Irrelevant]

Though it would take a monumental amount of cash, I wonder how much proper enforcement of water rights would help in water shortages across Montana. It is certainly true that more water is allocated across many montana streams than flows in them during those water rights' periods of use, but I also know a lot of shenanigans occur along our streams and in use of Montana's water above and beyond what is owned and when it is allowed to be used.

I have seen folks on social media sharing this article, calling for minimum streamflow legislation. Though it is true that Ag is a big reason for our inadequate flows, I believe it is a fact that such a legislation would be a taking, and a massive one, and oversimplifies a complex issue. (Say minimum streamflow leg as proposed, requires 25% the typical annual flow to remain in the stream. So if a stream is flowing at 16%, as the Jefferson currently is, then no one gets to irrigate?)

Maybe we are just F'd. I am a believer in the tiny wins, no matter how unsatisfactory and seemingly short falling in the big picture. The instream rights purchased here and there, the collaborative successes of the Big Hole, or the Blackfoot Challenge, the changes in irrigation techniques that limit EVT, etc. One may rightfully say that those are tiny drops in a woefully inadequate bucket. But I wonder how realistic the seductive idea of minimum streamflow legislation is, and how it could backfire monumentally. I do wonder if we have massive fish die offs in places like the Big Hole, the Jefferson, the Blackfoot, etc, if that would cause the crossing of a threshold, where what was once unlikely could become plausible.

Most basins in MT are closed, and rancher Bob has a snowball's chance in hell of getting additional water exceeding what he already owns. That said, a 100 home subdivision can go in right next door, every one of the lots driving an exempt well that allows up to 10 acre feet per year(never monitored). Aquifers and surface waters are often related, and I wonder if we don't get that under control, it will all be for naught in some areas anyway.

lots of good thoughts there. Enforcement would help, but probably help farmers more than fish. What might really help, it mandatory reporting. Every year, every water user must report well use. It goes a long ways to watershed planning, and documenting non or reduced use. It also keep farmers honest.

I think there is, and will continue to be lot of money available to solve water issues. Living next to the Columbia Basin Project, I wouldn't necessarily let money be a deterrent to finding a solution.

"Exempt use" needs to go away. We (WA) still have the term but in most areas, the Counties have been tasked with purchasing or saving enough water to cover all exempt well use (only the consumptive portions).

 

[TOGIE]

the CWCB (a government agency) in colorado has been authorized to appropriate and hold adjudicated instream flow rights since 1973. trust me, they've been busy, and water rights holders can donate their rights to them too and it hasn't solved the problem

western water law operates in a free market more or less. the market largely determines where the most senior uses end up, these days AG and municipal, with the split in Ag/Muni changing rapidly.

the CWCB has to operate in that market. if the people wanna save the fish you just need money.

but you know, it's only gonna cost you like 5-10 million dollars to buy a senior right and change it's use in water court. chump change for municipalities along the front range but entirely out of reach and impractical for most non profits or the CWCB. and how many senior rights on one stream to have meaningful change? a lot. it's just too bad that most of society doesn't value fish like some do. but this might change.

and i agree with @neffa3 - the laws can change, but when it comes to western water law its doesn't matter what kind of state legislature you have, these are laws that are not easily changed, more so than many i'd say

until the market determines fish are as valuable as the denver metro area's water needs, they'll continue to suffer. luckily there are smart people thinking of creative ways and potentially palatable laws to fix this for widlife and wild places. but i'm not holding my breath.

 

[TOGIE]

i'll channel my inner @Ben Lamb by saying that true lasting solutions to this problem are going to take more than laws that probably won't pass or hoping that fish will somehow find enough voice to compete with the ever growing needs of municipalities

it's going to take cooperation and collaboration and this article is a bit of an example of that - collaboration between some of the biggest transmountain diverters in the state of colorado.

@Nameless Range is right though, we have to continue to fight for the tiny wins, every single one we can get.

Hot, dry conditions stressing Grand County waterways

The Colorado River is hurting. The struggles of the river’s largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, have been well documented over the last decade as drought has ravaged the West. The story, however, starts more than 500 miles upstream in Grand County, Colorado. The county is filled...

www.denverwater.org

 

[Ben Lamb]

I love Joe. He's the kind of person that makes Montana great and while he represents what could be in it's purist form for the conservation outcome, it would cause significant hardship on irrigators. He cares only for the resource and not the humans that utilize it, and I respect the hell out of that.

Regardless, his approach isn't tenable given the current political bent of the state. I think Trout Unlimited has done tremendous work in the Clark Fork basin to increase flows, decrease wasted ag usage and be a partner to the landowners who help ensure that Montana isn't subdivided to hell and back. MT is 70% private land, and as @Nameless Range has pointed out, the allocation of those water resources is tapped out and has been for years.

If we were to look at streamflow & SWE deposits over the last 50 years, coupled with the increase in population, and compare that to historic irrigation usage, I wonder what we'd see in terms of who the biggest water users are.

The exempt well issue is a constant scramble at the legislature. If we think the politics of wolves & bears is tough, wait until you get into water law. Developers want to keep things wide open, but it's harming a lot of other folks. Couple exempt well with the possibility of ground water contamination through thousands of septic systems, etc and how Ag land conversion to subdivisions occurs at alarming rates in order to house the inbound gaggle, and you continue to add pressure to a system that is already about to buckle.

Hell, MT almost lost it's instream flow program in 19 due to anger over the length of time that instream flow programs had been running. It was extended, but it still has a sunset date on it, so the fight isn't over for in-stream flows by a long shot.