Add a Comment

Comment by sesport on June 13, 2009 at 3:45

As the debate heats up over pending repeal of the exemptions afforded O&G, I'm beginning to wonder if we can find a way to resurrect Dr. Mead with some kind of zombie voodoo? Maybe find someone with paranormal ESP to "channel" him? LOL (Might need a high def converter box, at this point. ha, ha, ha)

I'm going back to read some more of his writings & think about it. I've got my Red Rider sitting here in case I need to fire off another shot into the ceiling if things get too out of whack in the debates. :0)

Comment by sesport on June 10, 2009 at 5:25

For those interested, I've put a link to the pdf for Dr. Mead's writings back in the group for Health, Safety & Environment.

Enjoy - sesport :0)

Comment by sesport on June 5, 2009 at 5:19

As Keith reported yesterday, the issue of frac water is getting attention in DC.

Mead's thoughts from the excerpt of "First Biennial Report of the Wyoming State Engineer to the Governor of Wyoming 1891 & 1892: Opinions of Appropriation," p. 16.

"The evils which extravagant grants would in the end entail, would not at once be manifest. Few persons have an accurate knowledge of the volume of water they have been using, and few would, at first, appreciate the possibilities of an extravagant allowance. It is probable that the making of large appropriations would, for the present, have been a popular proceeding for the Board, because it would have more nearly coincided with the ideas of the great majority of claimants."

GHS members have been batting around ideas about which waters to use for the "zillions" of gallons of frac water that are/will be necessary for production. And, of course, as citizens, we want assurances that the companies won't receive "extravagant allowances" only to leave us high & dry. As Mead repeatedly stresses, the water is even more important than the land.

So, should frac water come from the aquifers, the Red, some nearby lake? Should we build a new reservoir, meaning somebody has to pay for it? (Maybe it could be a membership resort ... membership fees pay for the building of the reservoir? lol A time-share community whose majority investors are ????, the industries?) Okay, I'm sidetracking, but I find it difficult to keep my thinking inside the box.

Also at issue, but not yet addressed or discussed in yesterday's reports from Keith, is the potential for chemicals to leach from the surface as well as disposal wells and back into the water bodies. Mead urges, "It must be remembered ... water returns to the stream ..."

If the government is going to start examining the frac water/water use issue, shouldn't they just go ahead and start examining the whole ball of wax ... water issues from beginning to end?

Comment by sesport on June 1, 2009 at 16:12

from "Future disposal of the Public Waters: State Ownership" (p. 13, paragraph 1)

"No diversion or appropriation should be permitted, therefore, until the sanction of the territory, through its constituted authorities has been obtained, and the beneficial character of the proposed use established. Such oversight and precaution is necessary for the proper protection of public interest (public water supply being of greater agricultural value than public lands) and in order that controversies growing out of extravagant and injurious claims may be avoided."

My thoughts are that the words "State Ownership" is not meant to mean "mine, mine, mine." Rather it is meant to convey the state's resposibility, charges it with duty as the caretaker of the water distribution.

I know, I know, who wants government stickin' their nose in our business. Less government interference is needed, say some. But in reading through Elwood's writings, the peeps weren't doing such a good job of sharing. And the "big guys" were taking all they could without thinking of the rest. There were even some who didn't even live in the state, some who may not have even lived in this country, who were grabbing all they could. Not cool.

So now Mead recommends that the state takes responsibility, through the Territorial Engineer, to make sure everyone gets a piece of the water supply pie to ensure that the community is successful & thrives. Community being ALL citizens ... the farmers, the towns, the businesses. They're all needed, and due their equitable share of water, if there is to be a community, a state of Wyoming, at all.

We're going to have to share our water here in HS territory, too. Are we amenable to government involvement? How best to share it equitably? How best to ensure that it is protected so the communities survive & thrive? One energy company with stakes in the HS is celebrating its 20th Anniversary by building a recreational boating feature on the river in the city where it's headquartered. Would they be willing to kick in an equal amount of money to local coffers to ensure the protection of our waters? We've already got plenty of recreational boating areas.

Comment by sesport on June 1, 2009 at 13:59

I see your point & it's well (no pun intended) taken. Okay, I'm open for suggestions. What have ya' got for Plan B?

Sincerely - sesport :0)

Comment by sesport on May 31, 2009 at 7:09

Now, here are Mr. Mead's thoughts about the value of water.

"We are fast coming to realize that agricultural values inhere in the water rather than in the land which it reclaims, and with this knowledge is the conviction that more efficient supervision is required in its disposal and utilization. Important national measures are now under consideration having for their aim the improvement of methods and the furthering of the full and rapid development of our agricultural resources. Local governments are taking more efficient steps for protecting and securing the proper use of one of the most important resources and there is an increased interest in the subject on the part of the public at large."

(from Excerpts from the Second Annual Report to the Wyoming Territorial Engineer for the Year 1889, p. 12)

Yes, we're coming to realize the value of the resource water over the other resource (ng). And as Mr. Mead further states, we too must come to the conviction that more efficient supervision is required in it's disposal & utilization. We need water to frac the well, but we also need it to live and make a living through agriculture. We need proper & effective disposal of frac water and salt water. And it requires efficient supervision.

As we move forward with the implementation of the latest technologies to "farm" our HS resource, are we prepared to protect the more valuable resource, the water? Is the industry, and its supporting operators, doing more than the minimum required to see that the water is protected? Because, I'll tell ya', I'm willing to give up a little more of the green to meet higher standards if it means that the water isn't depleted or polluted.

Comment by sesport on May 29, 2009 at 15:57

From pg. 9, paragraph 5 ...

"In other words, instead of leaving the determination of water rights to be fought out by the different water users, either on the banks or ditches or in the court, there ought to be an impartial and competent examination by public authorities. Furthermore, any system, to be efficient, must deal with watersheds. It must bring together in some coordinated record not alone the diversions on each small tributary of a stream, but on the main stream and all the waters which contributed to its flow."

Seems like Mead, despite his youth at the time, knew about "global" concepts. He knew that the water supply could and would be impacted by factors that those using it hadn't necessarily considered. He realized that those farmers digging irrigation ditches could & would impact others further downstream.

Obviously, he was a "bigger picture" kind of thinker. :0)

Comment by sesport on May 27, 2009 at 16:21

Sorry about the link not working. I'm trying to figure out how to make it more accessible. If you can find it through another search, it's worth the read. :0)