Navigable versus Non-navigable Water

Navigable versus Non-navigable Water

 

Respective of the term navigable - and WOTUS (Waters of the U.S.), please know that under statute, the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers does not have authority over water/waterways instates west of the 100^th meridian.

Army Corps builds structures (dams, bridges etc.), but does not have regulatory authority over water.

When researching *removal of the debris/sediment on the S. Platte River in Colorado, we learned that there are "no open waters of the U.S." in the states west of the 100th meridian.
Federal jurisdiction applies only - to navigable waters of the United States.

So if, for one example, the South Platte is non-navigable, then there is no federal jurisdiction in the first place.

Even if the South Platte was navigable, then Title 33 USCA Chapter 26 Section 1370 says: "Except as expressly provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall...  (2) be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States." 

What else is exempt from EPA or Army Corps authority?  (1) all navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR § 423.11(m)  - - which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.

*The term navigable waters of the United States is defined in section 502(7) of the FWPCA, and includes: (1) all navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (FWPCA) (Pub. L. 92-500) also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and tributaries of such waters as; (2) interstate waters; (3) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and (4) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce -

*removal -  Statutory permit exemptions make it clear that even if there were navigable waters in any state, Congress intended to exclude agricultural activities and emergency repairs such as the bridge debris clearing.

Volkswagen v. Government

The heat is on!

Why should Volkswagen be investigated for emission deception, but not government agencies?

by Paul Driessen                                                                                     January 9, 2016

The heat is on! Not the unusual winter warmth in much of the United States – but the unrelenting heat generated by propaganda and pressure campaigns that the White House, EPA, Big Green and news media are unleashing in the wake of the Paris climate agreement … and as a prelude to the 2016 elections.

A recent Washington Post editorial laid out the strategy. The long-term warming trend is “concerning.” Maybe we can’t blame this year’s strong El Niño “squarely on climate change,” but “one paper” says the number of strong El Niño years could double. Obama’s “landmark” carbon dioxide regulations “played a key role” in securing an “unprecedented” international climate deal that could eventually compel all nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, to “avoid serious risks” of climate catastrophes.

Above all, we must “build on 2015’s climate progress.” There must be no backpedalling on the Paris accord, EPA regulations, or replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Above all, no “fishing expeditions designed to personally discredit scientists and undermine peer-reviewed research” that supports the elimination of carbon-based fuels. Republican claims are mere “bluster” and “buffoonery.”

Never mind that White House and EPA events, the Paris climate conference, the Vatican climate summit and even Science magazine have offered virtually no forum for numerous scientists who contest claims that humans are causing “dangerous manmade climate change” to present their case or debate alarmist witnesses and officials. Never mind that climate chaos claims look increasingly flimsy.

A fundamental principle is at stake here: policies and rules that affect our lives, livelihoods and living standards must be based on honesty, accountability and verifiable scientific evidence.

The Justice Department has sued Volkswagen on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. They want up to $18 billion dollars in penalties, because VW installed special software that caused its diesel cars to emit fewer pollutants during tests used to ensure compliance with emission regulations. The falsified tests allegedly duped American consumers into purchasing 580,000 diesel-powered vehicles.

Federal prosecutors are also conducting criminal probes of Volkswagen and its executives. Countless other civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions have companies and citizens in their crosshairs. Such actions are often warranted, even if the draconian incarceration and monetary penalties are not.

No one should be victimized by fraud or other criminal activities, by private companies – or by government agencies and bureaucrats, or third parties they hire and use to validate their policies.

Equally important, no one forces us to buy a VW or any other car. But when it comes to laws and regulations, we have no choice. Submit, or else. If those rules are based on dishonesty – on emission deception at massive, unprecedented levels in the case of climate – we pay a huge, unacceptable price:

Our taxes support science that may be manipulated and fabricated. More taxes fund regulatory behemoths that target energy producers and energy-dependent industries, while giving billions in subsidies to crony-corporatist allies. Still more tax money is transferred to alarmists like Michael Mann and Jagedish Shukla, who launch vicious attacks on skeptics. And the resulting regulations inflict soaring energy costs that kill jobs and hammer families, companies, hospitals, schools and communities, for few or no benefits.

Congress has every right to investigate this. Indeed, legislators are duty-bound to ferret out fraud and abuse. These are not “fishing expeditions.” They seek to determine the reliability and integrity of data and studies presented to support enormously expensive policies, and ascertain the veracity of government officials and tax-supported scientists who want more power and too often refuse to answer questions.

EPA and Justice Department investigators demand full disclosure and tolerate no obstruction, obfuscation or misleading information. This is fitting and proper. But why should we and our elected representatives have to tolerate such actions by heavy-handed regulators who want to control every aspect of our lives, but routinely hide their data and methodologies, and refuse to be held accountable?

There are good reasons to doubt their climate chaos assertions, and even their integrity. What little warming our planet has experienced in the past 19 years is measured in hundredths of a degree, especially when adjusted for the El Niño effect that transfers warm surface Pacific Ocean temperatures to the atmosphere. The warming that has the Post, Mr. Obama and EPA in a tizzy began around 1850, as Earth emerged from a 500-year-long Little Ice Age – which by happy coincidence for climate alarmists also marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that they blame for most warming in recent decades.

Hurricanes and tornadoes, storms, droughts, polar ice and sea levels are all within the realm of historic experience. There is nothing “unprecedented” about them, and certainly nothing to justify shutting down our carbon-based energy system, restructuring our economy, or redistributing our hard-earned wealth to countries that are not bound by any energy and emission reductions agreed to in Paris.

The fracking revolution proves we are not running out of oil or natural gas. That means we have a century or more to develop affordable, reliable replacement energy technologies. It means environmental radicals now have only climate cataclysm hysteria to justify demands that we abandon hydrocarbons. It explains why they’ve concocted the fairytale that CO2 is “acidifying” oceans that are and will remain firmly alkaline, and why they have been in regulatory hyperdrive during Obama’s final years in office.

However, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in Paris, even if all the industrialized nations’ CO2 emissions declined to zero, “it wouldn’t be enough [to prevent alleged climate disaster], not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” Even assuming that carbon dioxide does drive climate change, all the costly, job-killing regulations that EPA is imposing would prevent an undetectable 0.018 degrees Celsius (0.032 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.

Earth’s climate fluctuates regularly. What actual evidence do climate alarmists have that recent changes are dangerous, unprecedented, and due to fossil fuel use? That any warming above 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F) would be catastrophic? (A cooler planet would be much worse for wildlife, people and agriculture.) 

What actual evidence do they have that government can control climate and weather by limiting the amount of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere? That justifies letting anti-energy activists and bureaucrats “fundamentally transform” our entire energy and economic system?

Why do they refuse to present their asserted evidence for all to see – amid robust debate and cross-examination – and try to defend their “97% consensus” science? Why do some of them think “climate deniers” are mentally ill for questioning the manmade climate Armageddon mantra?

President Obama insists that climate change is the biggest problem facing America. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seem to agree. They all think Bigger Government is the answer.

The citizenry fundamentally disagrees. One recent Gallup poll found that Americans view our already huge government, the economy, jobs and terrorism as the biggest threats facing our nation. Pollution came in at #23; global warming didn’t even register among 48 listed issues. Another Gallup study found that 69% of all Americans (88% of Republicans) say Big Government is the most serious threat we face.

That is what this year’s elections are all about.

How much bigger (or smaller) will our government become? Who gets to rule your lives: We the People, or another dictatorial president and her army of faceless, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats? What will the future hold for our lives, liberties, livelihoods and living standards?

Get informed. Get involved. Get to the polls. Better yet, take a page out of the Democrats’ playbook: get to the polls early, vote often, and make sure your dead friends and relatives vote too.  

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

The Spreading Epidemic of Tribalism

The Spreading Epidemic of Tribalism
By Elaine Willman
Author - Going To Pieces..

 

“Officials in a small Montana town say they will have to disincorporate the community or declare bankruptcy over an ongoing dispute with the Blackfeet Tribe about water and utility service…lawsuits filed by the Blackfeet Tribe, Two Medicine Water Company and certain tribal members have had the same goal: to eliminate the Town of Browning by bleeding it financially dry, officials reported.”
Missoulian, Dec. 25, 2015
     A similar fate once threatened the Village of Hobart, Wisconsin, and now threatens Shawnee, Oklahoma and many other communities . So what is the problem with removing municipal government for tribal government jurisdiction?  Tribal governments do not allow non-tribal residents any voice in their government, and have no duty to protect or serve them. Tribes just want to tax, govern or chase non-Indians away. Rightful government of American citizens on Indian reservations is gone when states, counties and towns spinelessly give up.
     More serious is enormous escalation of tribal governance over non-tribal persons, businesses and properties resulting in the removal of State authority and responsibility for its citizens. Citizens are losing their government when they succumb to bullying, name-calling, frivolous litigation, appeasement, and acquiescence to every tribal demand. The price is the loss of government that serves and protects you – the United States and State Constitutions.
     Every Indian reservation is co-located within states, multiple counties and numerous towns. Among the 566 federally recognized tribes, some 340 Indian reservations are located directly within or near urban areas as well. Only two or three Indian reservations are predominantly populated with Indians. The vast majority of reservations are home to a large non-Indian population. Congress intended and fully opened Indian reservations to encourage settling of the West, and citizenship for Indians. That is the reality federal, state, local and tribal governments now find unacceptable.
     Early Indian treaties executed by either the Department of War or Secretary of Interior served two people and two purposes: to provide land and protection for Indian tribes and to keep the settlers safe. Every Indian Treaty has a clause requiring open public roads through reservations, and a clause requiring Indians to “cause no depredation” (harm) to settlers. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) originally looked to the well-being of all folks in the West, not just Indians until 1934. The Indian Reorganization Act was a paradigm shift for the BIA that from 1934 on, focused only on Indians, hired only Indians and facilitated expansion of tribal governance to the exclusion of state authority and citizen protections on reservations.
     The Obama Administration poured accelerant into the expansion of tribalism with two recent, alarming policies: 1) President Obama decided that the nation’s public utilities, power and energy grid are good “economic development” for conversion to Indian tribal assets. Obama and Congress have funded billions of dollars out to tribes for transitioning major dams, energy corporations, and confiscation and control of water across the country. 2) Obama and Congress have determined that tribal government interactions with Middle Eastern countries is now a great idea for Indian “economic development” too (the Hearth Act of 2012).
     Domestic tribalism and Middle Eastern tribalism have shared cultural norms (communalism) and a common adversary:  the United States. The White House views big Middle Eastern money (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) tucked away on private Indian tribal “trust” lands as good for Indians and America. Tribal trust land is off-limits to all state and local government eyes. Am I kidding?  No, we should be very concerned. For the doubtful, visit the www.aljazeera.com website to see how significantly America’s Indian tribes are being tracked and engaged. Just enter the search word “tribe.”
     We will now have wealthy little Sharia compounds on Indian reservations to add to the 190 cities designated to receive Syrian refugees. Obama is polka-dotting the entire country with Sharia enclaves to enrich Indian tribes and reflect our generous heart for immigrants. Our blind, deaf and dormant Congress has held its nose and endorsed all of this.
Promises made by Congress to “Go West Young Man” were just as valid and perpetual as any promise made to Indian tribes. It was Young Man who built the first schools, churches, small towns, farms and ranches, all on the faith that Congress provided in Homestead and other Acts. Young Man built this country. For the past several decades, however, promises made to settlers and their descendants have been politically stained and reversed. America should not have sent Young Man West. Indian tribes want their reservations and “aboriginal lands” restored to their natural habitat. Every non-Indian should be shamefully sorry forever, and gone soon. The lack of appreciation for Young Man and coddling of tribal governments is chilling.
     This is what pockets of apartheid now bolstered with more of the same from Middle Eastern countries are doing to America. This is what unequal, hyphenated-Americans and “cultural diversity” has created. “Americans” is a wrong and ugly word in its own country. I practice daily free thought, free speech and due process, and am keenly aware of my rights under the federal and state constitutions.  I absolutely refuse to tolerate that my own citizenship in this country is denounced as inferior to that of any other American citizen.
     We have a growing national epidemic but the impacts first strike locally, in one zip code after another, one town after another, one county after another. It is coming to your front porch.
State, county and local governments within Indian reservations absolutely must stand tall no matter the severity of well-funded special tribal governments funded by you, to defeat you. States must act as fully separate Constitutional Sovereigns on equal footing with each other, and independent of the Federal government beyond its enumerated rights. Every single American, including tribal members living within or near and Indian reservation in 2016 must commit to “If you see something, say something.” We are either strong and equal citizens protecting ourselves and country, or the perfect storm is set to take us down sooner than we even know.

SHERIFF JOHN COOKE REBUKES OBAMA'S GUN IDEAS

 

Colorado - Weld County: Sheriff John Cooke rebukes President Barack Obama's ideas about gun control - choosing instead to uphold the 2nd Amendment.
Sheriff Cooke joins with county sheriffs in strongly opposing Mr. Obama's plan to render the 2nd Amendment impotent.
A growing number of County Sheriffs (as far southeast as Mississippi to Oregon's Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson) are fast recognizing that the duly elected Sheriff of a county is the "highest law enforcement official within a county holds law enforcement powers exceeding any state or federal official."
In a brief interview with LAW USA, Sheriff Cooke stressed that enforcement of "States Rights is the only way we'll save America!" And that's exactly what he intends to do.
Monday, January 21, 2013, through consultation with Colorado Sheriffs, Cooke will present their formal refusal to Obama's plan.
Sheriff Cooke knows that no one is above the law; even the President of the United States. He will never allow anyone to force an action that would "infringe" upon the rights of U.S. Citizen in his county to keep and bear arms.
LAW USA humbly thanks Sheriff John Cooke for recognizing our U.S. Constitution as the absolute and final word that empowers County Sheriffs (and County Commissioners), to use laws that will protect the citizens of their counties from illegal actions by Federal and State Agencies.
Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

LEARN YOUR RIGHTS!

Land And Water USA Presents ...

"If you don't know your rights, you cannot defend them.”
Leading Experts will show you how your State’s and
U.S. Constitution guarantee your rights.
They will also reveal who amongst us is above the law.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Island Grove Park 501 North 14th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631
9:00 a.m. Doors open for Registration
10:00 a.m. Program Begins - 4:30 p.m. Program Concludes
Admission $25.00 each

Organizations! Why not consider sponsoring 10-20-30-100 students? For students with student pass, your organization can sponsor a 10 student block for only $150.00 each block. Please work with your local Colleges, Universities, High Schools, Home Schooled, any school, to make it possible for students of any age attend this exciting event. We'll be honored to include your name on the program and on the Land and Water USA website.

(Click here for more information, pre-registration and/or sponsorship form)
______________________________________________________________

JANUARY HEADLINES

January 11, 2013 Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From? Brandon Smith

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 11, 2013 Natural Gas Vehicle Industry Surviving Without Government Subsidies - An Investigative Report By Keith Phucas, Wyoming Liberty Group

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 8, 2012 "From Tanzania," by Kristen Keil is a delightful telling of one young lady's experience in Tanzania. Kristen is daughter of Ken Keil, LAW Contributing Educator and Good Neighbor Law Treasurer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 7, 2013 Government of, by and for activists - University think tank’s lawsuit raises serious questions about the old and new EPA- Ron Arnold

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 5, 2013 ASPCA Pays $9.3 Million in Landmark Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Settlement - Feld Entertainment RICO Lawsuit Will Continue against the Humane Society of the United States, the lawyers, and other remaining defendants ______________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT/SYNOPSIS  AGENDA GAMES

How Today's High-Stakes Political Combat Works

©2012 Beverly K. Eakman

The thesis of the book is that Americans are being “played” in a high-stakes game to destabilize the nation. What foreign policy experts like to call “regime change” is coming to America, and the average constituent is caught up in a game of political maneuvers.  The author details techniques that are highly reminiscent of “superbly Stalinesque” schemes perfected in the old Soviet Union to extinguish “old loyalties” and replace them with “new thinking.” A tried and true formula of diversion, distraction and disinformation has been refined by a new breed called “Perception Managers” using 21st-century technological capabilities to mold public opinion.  Their employers and enablers include well-connected cabal of now-entrenched, if not exactly concealed, old Marxists, behavioral experts, world-government advocates (anti-nationalists), statists and global financiers, both inside and outside the United States. Among them are a plethora of “do-good” foundations, associations, institutes and centers-for-this-and-that. Most troubling is the United Nations—because America can no longer extricate herself from its tentacles. The goal, or overarching Agenda, is a redistributive, regimented and regulated U.S. The end-game is passed off as altruistic, but places a dictatorial elite at the apex of local, national and world affairs.  The end-game is a U-turn from the nation’s founding ideals, especially values such as self-reliance, self-determination, and rugged individualism—which already are characterized as “antisocial” and “dangerous.” Only sporadic infighting among the elite occasionally results in ejection from the inner circle—and vaunted status.  Lip-service is paid to “popular consensus,” but even that is being slowly eroded via campaigns of grueling harassment, bankrupting fines, unapproved regulatory demands and career-ending marginalization. 

The book encompasses nine forums—Health Care, Budget, National Security, Criminal Justice, Education, Political Campaigns, “Green” Energy, and Family Values.  In each forum, specific strategies—“games” or mini-agendas—are replicated under the noses of focus groups and committees tasked with assuring and protecting community input individual prerogatives. These “agenda games” are carefully scripted so as to play out advantageously for the political elite—both legislatively and in the media.  But they are recognizable if one knows what to look for.

Regardless of political party, every contender for public office or political appointment is being held hostage to a set of pre-determined outcomes.  The author provides an insider’s view as to why millions of citizens are frustrated in their attempts to engage in significant dialogue with their elected representatives. Little-understood terms like “compelling state interest” and “immunity of public officials” are defined and exposed as ruses to protect the elite from a backlash—both in the court of justice and in the court of public opinion. Specialized concepts—especially those associated with finance (“The Budget Game”) and surveillance (“The National Security Game”)—are clarified to accommodate both the professional and lay reader.

SOLUTIONS TO NON-HISTORIC FLOODING AND DRYING

Solutions to Non-Historic Flooding and Drying.......Along Colorado’s South Platte River Basin Provided by Land and Water USA (LAW USA) July 2, 2012 We propose two solutions to the non-historic flooding and drying along Colorado’s South Platte River Basin. First, our solution to non-historic drying acreage is to re-capture and apply approximate 40,000 acre feet water. Secondly, our solution to non-historic floods is to pump senior wells. To provide a perspective to these solutions, we offer a brief on Colorado water. Use of water in Colorado (The Colorado Doctrine) is governed by the “Prior Appropriation System”, i.e. first in time, first in right. “Prior Appropriation” is established when a person is the first to physically divert (also known as take) water from a stream (Surface Water) or underground aquifer (Ground Water), puts that water to beneficial use, then receives a court decree which verifies them as having priority (prior) status. As Decree Owner, they become the senior water right property holder with the right to use water within a defined "watershed". That water right, which consists of Surface and Ground, must be satisfied before any other water right established after that date in time - known as the "adjudication date". Surface and Ground Waters are decreed inseparable. Decree owners may (must) use both Surface and Ground water in combo, in balance, and for beneficial purpose. Decree owners may be a company (such as a Ditch Company) or an individual. An individual may be a stock holder to a company through ownership of Shares. The South Platte River is a “gaining stream” because of developed irrigation upstream. The first developments of South Platte Valley irrigation began south and west of Greeley, through the Larimer & Weld, Greeley # 2, Greeley # 3, Platte Valley, Farmers High Line, O’Brian, and High Line canals. Around 1879, this area became fully appropriated and “Senior.” Senior development of irrigation, through the inseparable Surface/Ground water combo, developed the river’s flow making it a “gaining” river. Without irrigation, the river’s seasonal snow melt would naturally runoff or flow intermittently, not unnaturally continuous. It would dry up past Greeley. Having the river go dry past Greeley is, however, normal. This is why Canals east of Greeley, beginning with the Bijou and Riverside, are “Junior” appropriations. Solution to alleviate non-historic drying: Colorado committed approximately 40,000 acre feet water to the South Platte River Implementation Recovery Program. Colorado’s withdrawal from this Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming agreement would return, again, approximately 40,000 acre feet to Colorado. We recommend that Colorado withdraw from this agreement, since it violates our Colorado Constitution. Initiated by Governor Romer and signed by Governor Owens in June 2006, both governors committed state assets (water) and indebted (financial commitment) Colorado without a vote of its citizenry. Federal government does not own water. States own water. The only way our federal government can obtain water is by purchase from Decree Owners. Thus, we must ask the questions. Whose water, also considered owner property, did the State appropriate to sell to the federal government? What water rights do “Junior” appropriations have when there’s no water in the river? Is our state denying “Senior” access to property to fulfill agreement commitments? If yes, does the state of Colorado intend to compensate “Senior’s” losses in investment, property, business, taxes and income accrued from 2006 forward? Without “Senior” irrigation development, the river would not cross Colorado’s border. The transporting of water takes river from historic intrastate into non-historic interstate status. This puts the agreement into a peculiar interpretation of the commerce clause. Where are the diversion points and transfers from one basin to another? Where is the volume of water measured? Is it measured as it crosses the state line? Is it measured from a point of diversion? And, finally, are catch drain return volumes included in the acre feet measurement? What does the “Memorandum of Understanding” say about Colorado giving water for allegedly Endangered Species? Solution to alleviate non-historic drying of acreage: The Sylvester farm, for example, has a seep ditch that has not quit flowing in over 140 years. The seep ditch was dug by a team of oxen to drain and to make swamp land productive before irrigation wells. This ever flowing seep ditch demonstrates, therefore, that the underground aquifer is as full as it was in the early 1800's. We recommend the pumping of all wells in the described “fully appropriated” part of the South Platte Valley. The water level in a well can be lowered when nearby wells withdraw too much water. The opposite occurs, i.e. water level rises when wells are shut off. In 2006, well pumping was curtailed, some wells were shut off and augmentation was set at 100%. This combination caused an over-saturation of the soil to the extent the aquifer water table raised to non-historic levels. Ground and Surface Water rights are inseparable and must be managed in balance. By ordering wells to stop pumping, judgment was made to separate Ground Water from Surface Water, and threw the South Platte Valley into the present non-historic imbalance. There’s a significant delayed response between pumping and stream flow down river. Therefore, pumping wells will not cause harm to lower end users during this or the following growing season. After implementing the withdrawal from the South Platte River Implementation Recovery and the pumping of the wells, we recommend Colorado revisit the South Platte River Compact Statute. Mutual consent of the signatory states of Colorado and Nebraska requires Colorado to “meet deliveries that would have been available at the time of Nebraska’s claim, June 14, 1897.” The compact recognizes that “variable climatic conditions, the regulation and administration of the stream in Colorado, and other causes, will produce diurnal and other unavoidable variations and fluctuations in the flow of the river at the Interstate Station, and it is agreed that, in the performance of the provisions of said paragraph two (2), minor or compensating irregularities and fluctuations in the flow at the Interstate Station shall be permitted.” Nowhere does the compact demand an exact predetermined acre feet delivery of Colorado’s water that could be construed as basis for a lawsuit by Nebraska. Finally, we feel confident that when activated, these solutions can resolve the non-historic flooding and drying along Colorado’s South Platte River Basin. www.LandAndWaterUSA.com Contact: (970) 284-6874 Chuck Sylvester C# (970) 430-0110 Roni Bell Sylvester C# (970) 430-0222