So much to bitch about here! Hard to say where to begin!

The State of Idaho is forcing the activation of Water District 29H, which encompasses the drainage basin of the "Marsh Creek".

What this means to me is that now I must begin paying for water that my father, grandfather, and great grandfather got for free. My water rights date back to 1882, more than a decade before Idaho was even a state. But the newly activated water district is forcing me to pay for the water I obtain through those rights.

Water users, ie: water rights holders, are now required to put computerized measuring devices on their diversion points -- the "acceptable" devices not only measure flow volume instantaneously, they also record and keep a log of those measurements keeping track of total volume diverted over time. The devices run about $3.5K. Since I have three diversion points, that means I'm now looking at buying $10.5K worth of measuring devices, plus the costs of having them installed and maintained.

But that's not all. Water users must self-finance all the costs of the newly activated water district.

The biggest item on the water district's budget is for a Water Master, a district employee who will periodically visit each water user's point of diversion to observe and record the volume of water that is being diverted. There are about 270 irrigation water users in the district. If he finds anyone that's diverting more than their water right allows he is supposed to direct them to comply with the limits of their water right. If he finds anyone that's diverting water without a water right, he's supposed to shut them down. And he fills out lots of state-required paperwork. And, of course, he's covered by insurance, gets paid $0.53/mile for his mileage (did I mention that the water district is over 30 miles long and ten miles wide?), and gets a phone and a computer and ISP services.

Not all the water users have the same size water right. Mine is large-ish, the fifth largest in the district, though it seems not so big to me. The district has lots of users, 63 of them to be exact, who are at the "minimum" threshold, who are charged a flat fee of $50/year. My charges come to $600/year. It's galling that the Water Master will spend just as much time reading a meter at a small user's place as he will reading my meter, yet I have to pay 12 times as much for his services! I complained about this at the water district's first annual public meeting.

I pointed out that small users are making me pay for there Water Master services, and how is that right? A lady there told me I had a nasty attitude about it, that she shouldn't have to pay as much because she's a small user.

Damn, lady! When we buy a loaf of bread we both pay the same price. Why should I have to pay twelve times as much for the Water Master's hour than you do?

This is all just another example of TOO DAMNED MUCH GOVERNMENT combined with the Free-Shit Army that refuses to pay its own way.

All this leaves me in a foul mood. Damn it all!

Governor Moonbeam would call you a "freeloader."

So if I'm reading this correctly you have to pay for the equipment that tells the state how much water you use, then pay for the water itself, and then pay for the guy who comes out to read the equipment? And this is all water that up until this point you and your family have gotten for free?

Yes, that would piss me off too.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
So if I'm reading this correctly you have to pay for the equipment that tells the state how much water you use, then pay for the water itself, and then pay for the guy who comes out to read the equipment? And this is all water that up until this point you and your family have gotten for free?

Yes, that would piss me off too.

You're right about the measuring devices, and almost right about everything else.

Ostensibly, there's no fee for the water itself.

The new cost that we never had before but now have to bear is for the water district's administration. Paying for that is disassociated from how much time that the administrators actually spend on the individual water user. Instead, they are breaking out the costs in proportion to the water volume in the water user's water right. What this means is that if your water right is below a certain threshold you pay a standard minimum fee of $50, the "minimum". My water right is about 12 times larger than the "minimum", so I pay 12 times as much for the same amount of administrative effort as someone below that minimum volume threshold does.

The district's Water Master (and the district's treasurer, the other paid position that the state requires the district to have) spend just as much time on you if you use only one acre-foot of water during the irrigation year as they do if you use 1,000 acre-feet of water. But if you use only one acre-foot then you pay $50, and if you use 1,000 acre-feet you pay $600. From my point of view, that's just wrong. The same services should cost the same amount.

Also, as long as I'm bitching, let me add this: the impetus behind this is two-fold.

-- There are some water users in the district that have complained to the IDWR (Idaho Department of Water Resources) that someone upstream is "stealing" their water -- in other words the volume that they are expecting is simply not there at their diversion point.

-- There are some very large agri-business deep-pocketed water users downstream in the Twin Falls area that have the same complaint, that the volume they are expecting is not there at their diversion points. These guys have lobbyists and political clout, thus the legislation forcing this newly activated water district on us.

Maybe they're right, maybe somebody is stealing their water. Or, maybe their problems stem from variations in annual precipitation -- some years are dry years. Bottom line is that water users by law queue up in order of the "seniority" of their water right. If somebody's water right is older than yours, that user is entitled to get his water before you do. That makes perfect sense. But if the water isn't there in the first place, then having a senior water right just means that you're first in line to get nothing.

So, I have relatively senior water rights dating back to 1882 -- probably the most senior in the new water district. And I'm not taking, have NEVER taken, more water than I have a right to. Yet these complaining people have convinced the legislature to make law requiring me to prove I am not stealing water. They don't have to prove that I am stealing; I have to prove that I am not stealing. And the cost to me of doing that is installing damned expensive computerized measuring devices and paying employees whom I don't want or need to read those devices to confirm I'm not a thief and to bill me/keep records of the effort. And not only that, due to the unfair way in which they break out the costs to the water users (by volume in the user's water right, not by how much time the water district employees spend "servicing" the user) I have to subsidize those costs for the smaller users.

The government screws up everything it touches, and the Free-Shit Army has no hesitation to put its hand into your pocket to pay for the "more government" that it demands.

Not a fan of governmental overreach. Far, far from it. I assume you've looked into the legality of creation of the district, allocation of costs by rights vs. actual consumption, etc.

But one aspect of this is the risk of a 'tragedy of the commons' wherein an un-monitored good freely available becomes overconsumed destructively.

In one sense, if everyone's water use is monitored, and if you have the senior water rights, one aspect of keeping everyone honest means that there will always be water for you. (Well, 'always' is not precisely correct, in geological terms - water sources are not forever. But you'd be the last to run dry.)

This is, of course, the lemonade out of the lemons. It does seem odd to be forced to shell out to keep doing what you have a right to be doing. I'm very glad there aren't 'air rights'.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
So if I'm reading this correctly you have to pay for the equipment that tells the state how much water you use, then pay for the water itself, and then pay for the guy who comes out to read the equipment? And this is all water that up until this point you and your family have gotten for free?

Yes, that would piss me off too.

Seems even Idaho has been taken over by idiot bureaucraPs! Most likely they moved in from Kalifornistan. Like all those who moved up to the Lewiston area, bought big homes with the profits from selling out the homes they left.

Then promptly start turning their new locale into what they just left.

Kind of like here in Va. Assholes who totally screwed up MD, move into Northern VA, and promptly start the same shit, over again, and apparently expect a different end result.

Water Master Trapper189 has a nice ring to it. Where do I send my resume?

You having to prove that you are doing the right thing seems backwards.

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

-- There are some very large agri-business deep-pocketed water users downstream in the Twin Falls area that have the same complaint, that the volume they are expecting is not there at their diversion points. These guys have lobbyists and political clout, thus the legislation forcing this newly activated water district on us.

This is your problem, not the gubmint. Big business always fucks the little guy. See Walmart as example. It sucks. They have the money to pay people to bitch and whine on their behalf and get the law changed to favor them over Joe Citizen. They pay lobbyists (who should be shit onsite) and lined elected leaders wallets.

Sounds like a story with the makings of a good western to me.

Also, is there anything in your state constitution that could form a basis to challenge the disparity in fees?

-Rob

Just more liberal progression?

You can't fix stupid. My home town messed up and ran the storm water into the sewers. So to fix it, the amount of water running off your property is hit with a yearly tax to fix the problem they created.

Also they read your meter every two months instead of quarterly like most places saving labor costs.

Also most places use the winter quarter to determine your sewer rates since you are not watering the lawn or washing your vehicles. So if you use 3K gallons the winter quarter, that is your sewer rate for the rest of the year. Next year, it starts all over again.

I think I'd get together with your neighbors and put up a united front of telling them to go fuck themselves.

And collectively hire a lawyer and find a judge to issue an injunction until this is settled.

I personally think that if the state is putting this into place then the entire state should share the cost. Spread the cost over all water districts. Obviously it is benefiting the state in some way or they wouldn't be forcing this on you.

This makes me so mad I could spit.

I would fight it, as stated by Skull Leader. Get the neighbors involved, get a law firm and shut the idjits down.

I would draw the line at the cost of the equipment. If they insist upon installing them, they can pay for them. And they better be equipped to read the information via satellite, because I wouldn't be paying anyone to come read them, either.

I can for a fact state that my usage by the meter would be drastically less than actual usage.

You want to inspect? Come back with a warrant. Otherwise get lost.

I'm not trying to be adversarial, but how do you propose the State guarantee the rights of the younger water rights than yours? I assume they are activating the district because of complaints that junior rights are being robbed by senior water users.

It seems that the costs are not based on the cost of implmentation, but off of the economic value of the water, figured by volume (e.g. shares). Your complaint is similar to saying that a lease for 1000 acres of BLM costs the same to write up and administer as a lease for 1,000,000 acres, so the lease amount should be the same. In the district I know in UT, the fees also go towards ditch and resevoir maintenance, so a volume based fee is more appropriate.

Once again, not attacking, just playing devil's advocate to fully understand your position.

Well that sucks. What else can they tax and make you pay for? We don't know, but they do.

I understand you are being hit with a large bill all at once and that sucks. Water usage is a crisis that will only grow over time, we have already seen the impact of over use in the west and California. This metering will at least give officials information on how much water is actually being used and not just a figure they are reported by the user.

I guess the better question would be is: Where does the water come from, upstream or underground and forming a river on your property. If it doesn't originate on your property, how can you own the water?

Sapper
After i left California in the mid 90's, i moved to a little home by twin fall's Idaho.
A couple year's later,i went to part time work on a large ,sugar beet,grain potato farm.I managed the irrigation schedule for a few years.

A lot of farmers in the snake river drainage were boring deep water wells,but the state stepped in and told them the water rights to dig were secondary to folks like you,that had 3 to 5 generation farmers using water.

The argument about water was starting then.Very few people,except the farmers know that the mormon church is the biggest land owner,and water right owner in the west.

Water is more valuable than gold in the inter mountain west.And the demand from big city's for water will only grow.

But there is big revenue in the eyes of the state for being the monitor of water use.The water states look at water mangement as another revenue source.Like taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by rtquig:
I guess the better question would be is: Where does the water come from, upstream or underground and forming a river on your property. If it doesn't originate on your property, how can you own the water?

I'm tempted to respond by asking "How can you own the land?" But then you'd likely point out that nobody really owns their land, we just rent it from the state and if you don't believe that then try not paying your property taxes.

The water comes from upstream. It's open channel flow, and all three of my diversion points are on my property. So, OK. You got me. I said it wrong.

I don't own the water, what I own is the right to use the water -- the water right. I got that right when I bought my mother's and my grandmother's estates. The original right comes from my great-great-grandfather, who filed for it in 1882, just 19 years after Abe Lincoln created the Idaho Territorial Government, and eleven years before Idaho became a state.

Using diesel-powered and electric-powered pumps, I suck what I have a right to out of the "river" -- the Marsh Creek -- and use it to irrigate and to water stock. That portion of the water that isn't absorbed into the soil runs off back into the creek as "recharge water" to flow on downstream to the next downstream user's diversion point.

The new water district isn't charging me to exercise my right to the water. Instead, it is charging me to pay for the guy who monitors my use of the water and the gal who bills me for money to pay that guy and to pay herself. There's a difference.