The fight for Montana water- article

[Irrelevant]

Require a parking permit at river access sites. Revenues used to purchase (or lease) irrigated ag lands along the river for their water rights. Convert them to a habitat type beneficial use and leave them in stream. Allow public access on the purchased ag (now dry). Chip away at the problem.

Does MT have any kind of growth management act, requiring the State/Counties/Cities to plan for growth? The access to water, as part of the development process, can be tied to legally available water, thus before a building permit is issued there has to be proof of a water right. Many WA counties manage their own reserves for single family domestic. Kittitas Co, just east of the cascades from Seattle, purchased a few ag farms, then converted the water to domestic use. So when you build, you now have to buy a water right from them, they packages, indoor only; indoor + 2,500 sq ft lawn; indoor + 7,000 sq ft lawn. And it costs about double the market rate (to pay for future increases in water right costs); then all water use is metered and you pay a fine for over use.

Another small town around here charged 25k for a water meter connection. Those fees where used to pay for water resource project to increase the water supplies in their very small watershed.

Solutions abound.

Political will to implement them is usually what's lacking.

 

[SAJ-99]

Require a parking permit at river access sites. Revenues used to purchase (or lease) irrigated ag lands along the river for their water rights. Convert them to a habitat type beneficial use and leave them in stream. Allow public access on the purchased ag (now dry). Chip away at the problem.

Does MT have any kind of growth management act, requiring the State/Counties/Cities to plan for growth? The access to water, as part of the development process, can be tied to legally available water, thus before a building permit is issued there has to be proof of a water right. Many WA counties manage their own reserves for single family domestic. Kittitas Co, just east of the cascades from Seattle, purchased a few ag farms, then converted the water to domestic use. So when you build, you now have to buy a water right from them, they packages, indoor only; indoor + 2,500 sq ft lawn; indoor + 7,000 sq ft lawn. And it costs about double the market rate (to pay for future increases in water right costs); then all water use is metered and you pay a fine for over use.

Another small town around here charged 25k for a water meter connection. Those fees where used to pay for water resource project to increase the water supplies in their very small watershed.

Solutions abound.

Political will to implement them is usually what's lacking.

Your solutions all require people paying more $$$, hence why there is no political will to implement them. A lot of the discussion has been about laws and changing them, but there is substantial loss from people who don't even care what the laws are and do it any way. I think we need more metering on irrigation head gates. That idea is about as popular as releasing wolves and grizzly bears in the middle of towns. In MT, the DNRC is in charge of area but really has no enforcement capability. The best we can hope for is measuring and making people pay for what they use while using those funds to more efficiently use what we have (or what we get). It looks like Mother Nature will have the last word and limit supply. We can fight over the last drops that aren't enough for anyone to actually use.

 

[TOGIE]

Your solutions all require people paying more $$$, hence why there is no political will to implement them. A lot of the discussion has been about laws and changing them, but there is substantial loss from people who don't even care what the laws are and do it any way. I think we need more metering on irrigation head gates. That idea is about as popular as releasing wolves and grizzly bears in the middle of towns. In MT, the DNRC is in charge of area but really has no enforcement capability. The best we can hope for is measuring and making people pay for what they use while using those funds to more efficiently use what we have (or what we get). It looks like Mother Nature will have the last word and limit supply. We can fight over the last drops that aren't enough for anyone to actually use.

colorado's reporting and measurement requirements are extensive. i should know, i used to work in a specific enforcement arm of the colorado division of water resources.

but in prior appropriation states the end goal is to prevent injury to vested water rights. every state western states has their nuances, yes, but generally prior appropriation systems have that same goal and from an administration standpoint more measurement, more reporting, more enforcement is all oriented towards that goal.

which goes back to the problem. fish are not as important as Ag and Muni, they don't have the senior rights. fish and non profits can't compete monetarily with the municipalities for gobbling up those senior rights when they go for sale to change the use from ag to municipal and industrial.

laws the usurp senior rights for fish (like blanket minimum streamflow legislation) are going to have little to zero chances of ever passing. they have no chance in hell passing in a place like colorado, then think about montana??

right now, fish and the non profits have to operate in prior appropriation systems and administering agencies where the end all be all is preventing injury to vested water rights. edit: and perhaps that's partly what needs to change

 

[Irrelevant]

colorado's reporting and measurement requirements are extensive. i should know, i used to work in a specific enforcement arm of the colorado division of water resources.

but in prior appropriation states the end goal is to prevent injury to vested water rights.

And if fish aren't senior then there's no point.

which goes back to the problem. fish are not as important as Ag and Muni, they don't have the senior rights. fish and non profits can't compete monetarily with the municipalities for gobbling up those senior rights when they go for sale to change the use from ag to municipal and industrial.

I think in MT you still have a supply and demand setup that could benefit fish. There's simply not enough muni demand to outstrip the irrigated ag supply. But it won't be like that forever. MT conservations groups should be striking now while they can.

laws the usurp senior rights for fish (like blanket minimum streamflow legislation) are going to have little to zero chances of ever passing. they have no chance in hell passing in a place like colorado, then think about montana??

Exactly, if finding money is hard, taking away agricultural private property rights is a helluva lot harder.

@SAJ-99 I think you will find that irrigators are better than you think about keeping their neighbors within their water rights. There's a lot less wastage than you might think, though I'm sure exceptions exist. Again, I think you have a better change of getting those recreationists to pony up some money for a $30 annual parking permit, then you do ever getting a state fee for water right water use. I mean maybe if it's like a fraction of a fraction. But I think you're better off hitting up the drunks on inner tubes.

 

[Irrelevant]

Another "solution" I've seen is to publicly fund irrigation improvements to reduce conveyance loss, where a portion of the "saved water" is granted to the state, with the same senior priority, for use as instream mitigations. I've assisted in the conversion of 60+ miles of canal into closed pipes, paid for by the State, and were 80% of the savings were then transferred to the state for instream flows and 20% granted to the farmer for increased acreage (the carrot to get them to participate). Farmers also like the pressure they get from a pipe vs the open canal.