Coyote Gulch

Friday, August 18, 2006

North Side Croquet Club: Game 18

North Side Croquet Club: "A David and Goliath sorta night. Congratulations to Poops for winning against a real tough field. With his two from last night, he now has 3 points. The winners circle also included Shane for the third week in a row, who moves up to 4 points. Dom and Boyd, 1st and 2nd place respectivally also got one more point each and Dom now has 16 to Boyd's 13 points. It's getting dark quick now and next weeks game is at Ruby Hill, so everyone bring your flashlights and get there as close to on time as possible. I will try my damndest to bring the gear to the same part of the park that everyone else is at."

Don't miss the new video Girls of the NSCC 2006.

8:27:03 AM

First in time, first in right

Here's a nice primer on western water law from the Idaho Mountain Express. From the article, "The foundation of Western water law, the prior appropriation doctrine, 'first in time, first in right,' is unique in this country to the 17 conterminous Western states and Alaska. If a state is arid, it embraces the prior appropriation system. Prior appropriation is policy that grew from the people, as opposed to being handed down by a legislature or the courts. It is policy that's generally considered to have grown out of a symbiotic relationship with hard-rock mining law...

"The rule of priority based on the time a claim was laid was a sound rejection of riparian water law, which applied in the eastern United States and England. Riparian doctrine requires sharing of a waterway by all landowners bordering it...

"It was the Colorado Supreme Court that issued a break-out decision in 1882 that cemented the issue for pure prior appropriation states throughout the Rocky Mountains. In 'Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.' the court ruled that the upstream, senior water user could legally divert an entire river out-of-basin, despite the burden that placed on a farmer, Coffin, downstream. 'Prior appropriation was the law of the courts because it had already become the law of the miners and farmers,' [University of Colorado School of Law Professor Charles Wilkinson] writes. Later developments in the prior appropriation system were provisions consistent with the mining camps. To obtain a water right, an appropriator had to divert the water. Water had to be put to a 'beneficial use.' Beneficial use was limited to mining, agriculture, industrial, municipal, domestic, stock-raising and hydropower uses. In-stream uses were not among those considered beneficial."
"colorado water"
8:17:56 AM

Local government to regulate watersheds?

Grand Junction voters may not be asked to pass an ordinance for regulating oil and gas drilling in their watershed, the city council may do it for them, according to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article, "Grand Junction City Council members have given indications that they will likely adopt a watershed ordinance designed to put into place safeguards to protect the city's drinking water. The council unanimously agreed late Wednesday night to hold a hearing Sept. 6 to take public testimony and consider whether to approve the ordinance. It also signed off on an intergovernmental agreement with the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder's Office to put the question to voters on Nov. 7, a step that would be taken only if the council decides not to enact the ordinance. But an hourlong discussion that lasted until just before midnight revealed that a majority of council members seem prepared to approve an ordinance crafted by organizers with Western Colorado Congress. Some on the council said board approval would make it easier to amend the ordinance in the future, if necessary. Members of the environmental group collected 4,270 signatures for a petition demanding the ordinance - nearly three times the 1,580 necessary to place a question on the ballot - and turned them over to City Hall. City Clerk Stephanie Tuin accepted 2,635 signatures.

"The ordinance would allow the issuance of watershed permits by the city only when the city finds the applicant has proven the proposed activity 'does not present or create a foreseeable and substantial risk of pollution or injury to the primary watersheds, city waters or waterworks.' The measure calls for the applicant of any land use involving mining, timbering or grazing to provide detailed plans of the activity, a list of any toxic substances or materials involved, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the watershed and a detailed description of the potential impacts the activity will have on the quantity and quality of the city's water. The ordinance would also require that drilling companies post bonds to cover 100 percent of potential damages, as estimated by the city manager...

"The council emphasized that the ordinance will not prevent drilling on the mesa, contrary to what some believe. Palmer said during the time organizers were gathering signatures to force a question onto the ballot, he was approached by someone who asked him if he wanted to sign a petition to 'stop the drilling.' The ordinance and its effectiveness have been met with skepticism from some. U.S. Forest Service officials said earlier this month that the city, should it attempt to control drilling activities with permit fees, will have to reimburse the Forest Service for that lost revenue. Councilman Bruce Hill, meanwhile, has noted that the proposed ordinance only applies within five miles of the city's Kannah Creek intake, which isn't enough to affect the entire watershed."
"colorado water"
8:03:26 AM

e-mail John: