Government committee to look into aquifer regulation

That's a silly argument. I didn't know about mineral rights either. Does birth grant someone the knowledge of everything going on in their city, county, state, country? So silly.

Crazy, you just don't understand how these things work. I was born near a nuclear reactor so that makes me a nuclear physicist. Now what would you like to know about building an atom bomb?

So you can complain about the system but you don't have a clue how it works. Thanks, you just illustrated the whole reason I posted in this thread in the first place.

__________________

I assume you are from the city because you think farmers have been using center pivots for hundreds of years.

I also assume English is your second language since you believe that one can be from out of the state of WY but born in WY.

I lived next to train tracks for quite awhile so I obviously know how to drive and fix a train. What would you like to know about that? Lol!

In the west, as the old joke says, whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.
I agree with crazyfarm's basic tenet that government is dangerous to the small landholder simply because so many in government are in the business of making people do what they don't want to do. But it does not get applied equally. The BR (big rich) have the money and power to push back. This makes them a poor target for the government official. To make up for the frustration of not being able to push the BRs around, most government officials tend to push the LG (little guy) around a lot more. The smaller, the less resources of time and money to resist.

And who is an easy target is usually the personal opinion of the local official. A county official here decided, based on the size of a house, that they were rich enough to pay for the massive water treatment requirements that poorer people were exempt from doing. So she just up and told everyone that they needed to pony up the money (about $20,000 initially for each household with required testing and fees annually there after,) to met the same standards of water treatment for a small town. And at least two more tests were added by the government before that person stopped contacting us. And would have wasted water we could not afford to lose and used chemicals we did not want if we had not pursued the little details as they felt no reason to provide information. They just told us what to do.

I think we fought them to a standstill. At least we haven't heard from them in a couple of years. But it took many hours of research and not so pleasant meetings to have no official resolution in the end. As the manager of the Department told me when I asked about our appeal, he decided not to do anything about it personally. No regulation- just his choice. I left it at that in hopes that we would be left alone.

So without a fiesty bantam cock reaction, the LG just gets steam rolled. Just because they are low hanging fruit. To satisfy the bureaucratic urge towards obedience.

I don't know enough about Wyoming's water to know what specifally is what. But I thoughly agree that she has every right and exhibits good sense in pushing early for her needs up front.

__________________
For we used to ask when we were little, thinking that the old men knew all things which are on earth: yet forsooth they did not know; but we do not contradict them, for neither do we know.

It's not how you display the "facts" as you call them. I've responded many times in this post to your facts. We are on different pages. You see me as trying to limit the water of ag, and I'm not. I want sustainable farming practices. For you to think that is uneducated of me and to state I should simply know things because I was born in WY is silly.

Anyway, I've asked moderators to close this thread. No opinions are being changed here and the conversation is just degrading at this point. I hope it gets locked soon as I have this irrespresible urge to defend myself on this issue.

I responded to the last several post because of how you characterized me. I did not say anything other than you lacked knowledge. I did not call you names.

__________________

You really don't see anything you say as insulting? Again, it's HOW you say it. Owell. Bashing our heads on walls at this point.

By definition your land was sold to you by a subdivider/developer when he quit farming it he quit being a farmer!
Was your land actually farmed? Or was it graze land?

seriously flawed logic.

By your logic, If I farm 1000 acres but decide to farm only 900 acres and sell 100 acres, I am no longer a farmer.

If Mark Shepards farm is the one in WI, there is little that is the same between farming in WI and farming in WY. We had a neighbor that followed a plan that someone in another part of the country used. It took him less than 5years to lose the farm. That has not stopped him from advising others.

Nope.

__________________

What you don't understand is before you can decide to do anything you have to understand water rights inWY and how they effect your property. If the farmer sold you or someone else the land, but retained the water rights or sold them to a third party you may have no water rights. That is a possibility. Then, if you have the water rights, do you have first water rights. That will also effect your use of water. You should have either water rights on your deed or on a separate piece of paper at closing, at least that is how it works in WA. If you do not have water rights, state law should tell you how much water you can use. You need to know this as it directly effects the value of your property and how you can use it. Here, there are no adverse position rights to water, although you can lose your rights if they aren't used according to the stated right for a certain length of time.

Water rights laws are very important to western farmers. They can greatly increase your property value or make it have little value. If you ignore the water rights issue, it can cost you a lot of money. If I were the OP I would find out exactly what my legal water rights are before I did much to my property. It is both expensive to challenge water rights and almost impossible to change them, unless they aren't owned and your state will allow new claims. Find out where you stand.

Yes, my land was a wheat farm. I imagine, like other farmers, they sold some land so they could afford to continue farming. They do still farm several sections, they've subdivided 2.

That is why this thread is actually very important. More people out west need to know about water rights. It is part of the problem that affect our water problems. We will have enforcement of existing rights in the near future and many property owners are going to be financially devastated when their water use is monitored and even throttle way back due to misuse.

__________________

Keyline farming has been done in Australia, India, WI, Jordan, Isreal, etc. None of those areas have anything in common but the same concept has worked on them all.

I'm not going to buy the same trees as him or plant in the same shape as him. I'm adapting the same concept to my own land.

NO!
I seriously disagree.
I think this is important so that people EVERYWHERE learn about water rights ,water importance and most importantly the over crowding od America.

As of right now, I'm fine. Now if this committee enacts regulations that restrict swales, well I'll just follow the advice of the civil engineer's office and call them planting trenches.

I understand water rights are complicated. What is not complicated is why I am upset. I'm upset because the water is disappearing (evidently), the big users of it will not be regulated, because they have money and power, but I do not so I will be and the disappearing water will still disappear. Plus the people in charge of it are idiots.

Well DUH!

Sorta proves my point doesn't it?