**no ads, no spam, no pop ups, no email tracking: you know you'd be lost without FR .. click, donate, help FR fight the madness**
Posted on 05/15/2012 7:45:00 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The Obama administration has launched a new battle over water rights that threatens not only the the economies of arid Western states, which largely voted against him in the 2008 election, but their very existence.
WND reported last month that the federal government was creating obstacles for Tombstone, Ariz., to restore its water supplies following last year’s forest fire and monsoon-triggered floods in the nearby mountains. The federal government said crews could not use machinery to rebuild pipelines and spring-water collection systems.
Now, a letter contradicting longstanding federal practice asserts a claim to water in arid Western states, such as Utah, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, that supersedes all other authorities, including decisions by state water courts.
“Federal water rights are entitled to a form of protection that is broader than what may be provided to similarly situated state law rights holders,” states a letter from Julie Decker, the deputy state director in the U.S. Department of the Interior to the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
The letter was objecting to state plans to do a routine “Designation of Adequate Water Supply,” which reviews water resources, rights and uses when changes are proposed.
Decker’s letter said water is not “legally” available for some users who may want to develop property in the area, because “the expressed federal reserved water right created by Congress is senior to all junior water users who initiate uses after the date of the establishment of the reservation.”
Nick Dranias, who holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute, called it an “existential threat to the Western states.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping.
Knew it was coming. Even Beck warned peeps. The ‘NASA’ study that popped out, yesterday, is only the beginning, folks.
You think the war on oil is bad? Just wait. They’re going for our water.
That is the fastest way to start an insurrection.
Doubtful. The frogs in the pot have been boiling for years and they haven't jumped yet. Why would they jump over this?
How can you arguably have a republic when the States cannot even claim the water within their own borders?
Wars have been fought for less, and been entirely justified.
I missed the NASA study...can you please offer a brief gist of the report?
Tombstone probably made "first use' of that water.
The US government's lawyer (and I"m guessing it's one lawyer not well versed in land use or water rights) is saying that just because the US government owned the land that its rights supersede everybody else's.
Of course that's nonsense ~ if only because the KIng of Spain once owned all that land and he didn't advance any such notion. He can be demonstrated to have supported the "first use" doctrine. When he passed along title to others later he did not pass on a title with greater rights than he himself possessed.
The US government is just out of luck with any argument that asserts more right to the land than the King of Spain had (and after all, the various treaties the US signed when it acquired those territories all claimed that existing rights and titles would be respected).
We were magnanimous!
The Forest Service will have to learn to live with it.
They started this war for water in WA state. The Democrats actually started it, by stirring up the tribes to claim water rights to ALL the water, including storm water and well water.
The tribes filed a law suit in the state, claiming that the treaties which state that the tribes are entitled to as much water as they need, mean that the tribes can claim all the water, because they need it to maintain the salmon population. The tribes lost in the state court and they lost again on appeal. The case is now at the Supreme Court. The goal is to put meters on all wells and make rural property owners pay for the water they use, pay to the tribes. You will be given a certain limit and over that, you will be fined. If you have farm animals, you will have to apply for more water. You may or may not be granted additional water for your animals.
They already do this is certain eastern areas of the state and the state legislature tried to pass a law that a property owner could not place a cistern or rain barrel on their own property without a permit from the dept of wildlife. They said that when rain falls on your property, if it is allowed to flow freely, it might run off your property and then it wouldn’t be yours any more.
All the Democrat groups signed on in support of the Indian claim. They even helped them research their law suit. That is until they realized that if the Indians won, the Democrats would lose control of the state to the tribes. Whoever controls the water, controls the government. The Democrats have no come out against the tribal water control.
They may have to be taught to live with it, but I seriously doubt they want to learn about anything that doesn't enhance their power, authority, or budget.
Dohbama is punishment to the USA for murdering their babies..
His 2nd term will be devastating..
The question is.. does the USA deserve Dohbama..
I’m trying to search it, now. Maybe some other FRiend can link it.
A NASA study was basically saying that the earth is NOT covered by a vast amount of water.
This is how Agenda 21 will be forced onto the people. It will be incremental, a little here, a little there — always disguised as the beneficial solution to some “crisis.” Eventually the owners of the land will be herded into disgusting tenements in planned cities and the land (and water) will be used for the benefit of all species but homo sapiens. There have already been several trial runs and there will be more, all with the willing help of a traitorous media.
Thanks Army Air Corps
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
From this thread:
Agenda 21 Treaty on the Horizon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2883363/posts?page=7#7
See this thread with video
Fish or Foul on the Klamath River
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2883968/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EA1XI_yWyBU#!
Obama’s War on Bald Eagles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2883640/posts
Dohbama is punishment to the USA for murdering their babies..
His 2nd term will be devastating..
Revenge against his opponents will be his top priority if he’s re-elected.
I’m no expert on the subject, but when it comes to the states and water, left unchecked, couldn’t an upstream state cut off the water to a downstream state?
Indian and Forest Service “reserves” are entitled to the amount of water to accomplish the purpose of the reservation dated to the date the land was withdrawn into federal reserves. It is called the Winter’s Doctrine:
Winters v. United States (207 U.S. 564 (1908) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=207&invol=564
Reserved Water Rights. The Court upheld the power of the federal government to exempt waters from appropriation under state water law, and held that the government had in fact reserved the waters of the Milk River in order to fulfill the purposes of the agreement between the Indians and the United States. The case dealt only with current needs and did not address the future needs of the Indians. Skeem v. United States, 273 F. 93 (9th Cir. 1921)(applying Winters Doctrine to allotted lands;)
“Reserved” water rights are unlike riparian rights or prior appropriation rights, although they contain elements of both. For example, like riparian rights, reserved rights are appurtenant to land; that is, land ownership is the basis of the right. Also like riparian rights, reserved rights are not lost by nonuse. But reserved water can be used on nonriparian lands. And like prior appropriation rights, reserved rights have priority dates which reflect the security of the right. . . . However, the priority date for reserved rights is the date of the reservation or earlier, not the date of diversion, as in the case of most appropriation rights.
The chief characteristic of reserved rights is that they are federal rights, grounded on the (mostly implied) intent of the federal government to reserve water for its purposes. This characteristic serves to distinguish reserved rights from both prior appropriation and riparian rights. [In Re: The general Adjudication of all rights to use water in the Big Horn System and all other Sources, State of Wyoming Case Number: 00-296 Decided: 06/14/2002]
In CA, most reservations were created by Executive Order. Treaties ceding land were NOT ratified by Congress because aboriginal rights (except for a few publos) were considered terminated while under Mexican Rule and the tribes failed to make claims when the land settlement commission was convened after the Treaty of Guiadalupe Hidalgo.
There were several lawsuits and CA tribes were given some monetary consideration for the loss without affirmation of any aboriginal claim.
In Oregon, however, the tribes were considered to cede territory to the U.S. through treaty and they retained their water rights dating to time immemorial. (See the Adair cases.)
Oh, and if you want to see where federal control of water is going, the international blueprint is here: http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/IRWM%20global%20Part2.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.