Supporters say HB19 just clarifies how leasing water constitutes a ‘beneficial use.’
Water owner at point A leases a groundwater right to someone at point B.
The water can’t be used at point B so instead of forfeiture (which the
SEO said they never do) or reversion (which might happen after four
years) the water can be leased again for use at point C. None of this is
actual water until a thirsty city, or whatever entity can afford to, buys and builds water infrastructure to use the rights.
Cautious reading says that C could be anywhere - allowing lease holder at B to “shop” the use - or speculate. (Say it ain’t so.) It also may leave the owner A without much of a say in the matter, which could be why there is still some opposition from cattle and wool growers.
Like HB181, SB309 deals with water leasing for streamflow and wildlife which sounds so nice. Because of broad definitions and the absence of criteria it is at least conceivable this wildlife water could be used throughout that steam system for any beneficial use. So water leased for fish could be leased again for compact deliveries downstream. Is that wrong? Well it’s innovative and it isn’t just about the fish.
Cautious reading says that C could be anywhere - allowing lease holder at B to “shop” the use - or speculate. (Say it ain’t so.) It also may leave the owner A without much of a say in the matter, which could be why there is still some opposition from cattle and wool growers.
Like HB181, SB309 deals with water leasing for streamflow and wildlife which sounds so nice. Because of broad definitions and the absence of criteria it is at least conceivable this wildlife water could be used throughout that steam system for any beneficial use. So water leased for fish could be leased again for compact deliveries downstream. Is that wrong? Well it’s innovative and it isn’t just about the fish.
Comments