LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER

hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West.
West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come
first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough that
it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it runs
through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you
cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would
have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that cities
take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the water
treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the sewage
treatment facility, down stream.

Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get the
benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were you
diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a claim.
Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his own
pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or once
his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim.

This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on
these is almost 40 years old.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html


"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

when the pond was dug the water flow wasn't diverted. the water leaves the
pond and travels the same path in the same amount as it always has.

"D Kat" wrote in message
et...
If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

the neighbor would be diverting it (for a pond i am assuming he intends to
dig) and the level of our pond level would drop. it's not so much a
stream but a spring that flows from his property into ours.


"RichToyBox" wrote in message
news:q5_Ob.101991$xy6.189616@attbi_s02...
There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West.
West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come
first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough
that
it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it
runs
through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you
cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would
have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that
cities
take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the
water
treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the sewage
treatment facility, down stream.

Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get
the
benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were you
diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a claim.
Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his own
pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or once
his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim.

This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on
these is almost 40 years old.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html


"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

My understanding of the issue is that your neighbor cannot stop the flow of
water that is currently going into your property. We lived on wetlands and
could not do any development that would prevent the natural flow of the
water.

I also think that out west they were being sued by Mexico on this issue... I
don't know what happened there....

DK

"janet" wrote in message
link.net...
the neighbor would be diverting it (for a pond i am assuming he intends to
dig) and the level of our pond level would drop. it's not so much a
stream but a spring that flows from his property into ours.


"RichToyBox" wrote in message
news:q5_Ob.101991$xy6.189616@attbi_s02...
There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West.
West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come
first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough
that
it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it
runs
through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you
cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would
have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that
cities
take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the
water
treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the
sewage
treatment facility, down stream.

Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get
the
benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were
you
diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a
claim.
Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his
own
pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or
once
his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim.

This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on
these is almost 40 years old.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html


"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

You really need to talk to a lawyer unfortunately. I'd call your department
of conservation first so so you can arm the lawyer with info and not have to
pay for it. Water laws are different all over the place.



"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

Have you spoken to your neighbor about his intentions yet? Maybe it's just
temporary. You hate to start a fight over something that may be quite
innocent or a simple misunderstanding.

Joe
Recalling his two neighbors and the three year, two attorney standoff over
branches over the fence.



On 1/19/04 1:39 PM, "janet" wrote:

i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

D Kat wrote:

If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

Water rights are state jurisdiction, water channel changes, such as
making a pond under the described conditions is Army Corps of Engineers.

Considering that your lawn can be declared "wetlands" and under Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as "Navigatable waterways" if rain or
melting snow causes the soil to be saturated, I certainly hope some of
the environmental protections get tossed out.

BTW, farmers have lost control of their fields, some under cultivation
for many years, because the soil was saturated during the spring. It's
little stretch to apply the same to lawns. (I'm still gloating about
the trapping laws mess in Washington State. The yuppies cannot trap
gophers or moles messing up their lawns, because of a law *they*
shoved down the throats of the farmers and trappers. The rural people
are refusing to budge on allowing a partial repeal unless it all goes.
They have the numbers to block it, when combined with the loony left.)

Laws and regulations have no relationship to sanity, nor do they need
to actually accomplish their proported purpose.

As an example, a farmer was notified he could not work his fields any
more, because an endangered kangaroo rat lived in those fields. He
stopped working them, the brush grew up and changed the habitat, and
the rats died out. They cannot survive in thick brush, and that
farmer's field was the only habitat for them in the area. Another
species a little closer to extinction due to foolishly written or
enforced laws.

Excuse me, but you punched one of my "hot buttons". I won't go into a
zinc mine sterilizing a river in Tennessee, or British Petroleum
getting a special deal on oil in the Elk Hills (an environmentally
sensitive area in SoCal), as both involve a prior administration.

This is in fact one of my hot button issues. As I said, I lived on a
mountain side that fed the water supply to the thousands of people in the
area. It was a hassle working around the issue of where we could put our
septic system but entirely understandable and I was more than willing to do
my part. If the bath water you are washing the baby in is dirty, you throw
out the bath water NOT the baby. Any system of law is going to have
injustices. You have to fix it, not give up on it.

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work. It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth. Don't blame the protection of what all of us
need because of those making and implementing the laws.

I don't believe in public religious discussions but since this
administration is insisting on putting religion as something that belongs in
public I will say this. What most amazes me is those who claim to be
"people of G~d" who are happy to take a piece of art work of G~d and
graffiti it and putting their own creations above the worth of those of G~d.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
D Kat wrote:

If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I
don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through
the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

Water rights are state jurisdiction, water channel changes, such as
making a pond under the described conditions is Army Corps of Engineers.

Considering that your lawn can be declared "wetlands" and under Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as "Navigatable waterways" if rain or
melting snow causes the soil to be saturated, I certainly hope some of
the environmental protections get tossed out.

BTW, farmers have lost control of their fields, some under cultivation
for many years, because the soil was saturated during the spring. It's
little stretch to apply the same to lawns. (I'm still gloating about
the trapping laws mess in Washington State. The yuppies cannot trap
gophers or moles messing up their lawns, because of a law *they*
shoved down the throats of the farmers and trappers. The rural people
are refusing to budge on allowing a partial repeal unless it all goes.
They have the numbers to block it, when combined with the loony left.)

Laws and regulations have no relationship to sanity, nor do they need
to actually accomplish their proported purpose.

As an example, a farmer was notified he could not work his fields any
more, because an endangered kangaroo rat lived in those fields. He
stopped working them, the brush grew up and changed the habitat, and
the rats died out. They cannot survive in thick brush, and that
farmer's field was the only habitat for them in the area. Another
species a little closer to extinction due to foolishly written or
enforced laws.

Excuse me, but you punched one of my "hot buttons". I won't go into a
zinc mine sterilizing a river in Tennessee, or British Petroleum
getting a special deal on oil in the Elk Hills (an environmentally
sensitive area in SoCal), as both involve a prior administration.