21 September 2009

Flashback: 13 -- 19 Sep 2008

These posts are still relevant, so please comment!

BEST: Mission Failure -- when the Bureau of Reclamation continues to manage water without any customers.

Geo-Engineering -- I was against it then, and I am now. Why? The Law of Unintended Consequences. Speaking of that, MET to End Subsidies to Farmers is good news for sustainability.

BEST: Does "Free" Water Help the Poor? "No," writes J. David Foster in a guest post from India.

Water Quality -- the elephant in the room for water managers. In Wantrup's Work 4, we get some useful advice on how to manage water quality.

4 comments:

WaterSource/WaterBank said...

In "Mission Failure", you asked if anyone could comment ...

Each state may be different, but in CO, the Conservancy Districts contracted through the Conservation District for water from Bureau projects and then the Conservancy Districts entered into leases with individuals and state/municipal entities for specified amounts of water from the projects. Conservancy Districts were the ones who had the bonded indebtedness to pay off the Bureau projects. Two separate situations here ... conservancy districts could contract for water supply from storage projects that were outside their jurisdictional boundaries.

Nothing was all that complicated and it certainly was not a Mission Failure. The contracts solved numerous problems that were otherwise unsolvable due to damage to prior vested water rights of individuals within the Conservancy District boundaries. All land owners pay taxes to both the Conservation Districts and the Conservancy Districts.

Nice to have a master plan when you need it and especially when it eliminates all damage to all water rights ... sound familiar ?

David Zetland said...

@Ray -- thanks for the constructive comment :)

WaterSource/WaterBank said...

Hopefully, it was worth the $5 you feel I owe you ...

To me, it is improper to criticise a situation unless you have a better alternative for consideration.... hence my addendums.

Scores of articles, editorials, blogs and letters to publications attack the prior appropriation doctrine but suggest no real remedy, except ... you and I ... no one pays much attention to either one of us.

David Zetland said...

@Ray -- you do not owe me $5. You can *pay* me $5 for each new "Source" comment :)