Opportunity for one to acquire and enjoy private property is the foundation that has made America the great, desirable destination for so many.

Due to the confusion swirling around the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent attempt to clarify the Clean Water Act, we offer the following, for it is critical to first identify whose Water Rights EPA may or may not have authority over.
Removing Water Rights outside EPA’s authority will lessen confusion and reduce costs.

For Consideration:  

Remember: If State’s or Federal Government could legally take your Water Rights, they would have done so.

• If EPA employees could legally take your Water Rights they would have initiated real estate contracts in conjunction with EPA’s formation by President Nixon in 1970. 
• If President’s Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama could have taken your water rights, legally, they would have had plenty of time to do so over the 45 years since. 
• EPA employees, including its present Secretary, Gina McCarthy and even President Obama, cannot take your Water Rights without just compensation.
• No one is above the law, and no one has constitutional or statutory authority to help themselves to your Water Rights. Unfortunately, there are those who are so hell bent to seize control of your Water Rights they are violating Acts of Congress, Statutes, and your State’s and U.S. Constitution. You have a duty to stop them! 

Here’s how to stop those trying to seize control of your Water Rights:  

Congress, Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, General Assemblies, Cattlemen’s organizations, Food Growers, Resource Providers and Water Right Owners, should join together and demand Congress place a moratorium on regulatory action regarding water until all Water Rights are fully disclosed.

Congress should demand EPA Secretary McCarthy provide verifiable documentation to the following 5 requirements to determine Water Rights the EPA does not have authority over, and narrow the focus on Water Rights the EPA does have authority over; keeping in the fore the statute definition of *navigable.

1. Provide an accurate list that identifies each individual waterway in the United States which does not fall under the definition of *navigable. For example: There isn’t one waterway in Colorado that falls under the definition of navigable.
2. Provide an accurate list that identifies each waterway in the United States, which does fall under the definition of navigable.
3. Provide an accurate list of water related actions the Bureau of Reclamation has authority over.
4. Provide an accurate list of water related structures the Army Corps of Engineers has authority over.
5. Provide an accurate illustration that shows the lead federal agency that heads other agencies. This will eliminate that question, “Who’s on first.”

There are many states that can provide visuals that will show the vast difference between navigable and non-navigable. And because we live in Colorado, we’d be honored to show Congress close by examples of navigable (NE), and non-navigable (CO/WY) water. 
_________________________________________________________________
 
Questions regarding the S. Platte River 5/13/2015

1. 2005/2006 Lower end (junior) of S. Platte River claimed, "upper end (senior) took our water, caused depletions, now we don't have any water." Regardless the fact lower end did not have to prove harm,  Judge Roger Klein still ordered upper end: shut down wells (deny senior owners use of their property); augment at 100% (unattainable); make up for past depletions going back to 1975 (Where were water engineers during that 30 year time span?).
2. 2005/2006 Governor Owens apparently "found" enough water  to commit to NE.
   How and where did Governor Owens find water the lower end claimed didn't exist?
3. The 5 page PRRIP agreement commits states assets, "water," and indebted (financial commitment) without a vote of the citizenry. Did states bypass their general assemblies?
4. Because CO does not have water (to send NE), why not withdraw from PRRIP?  CO apparently "looses" thousands of acre feet water across the border to NE, why isn't this water used to fulfill PRRIP demand instead of CO's having to meet the financial commitment for non-delivery?
5. Even though the PRRIP is the gorilla in the middle of the room, it is never included in any water meeting discussions or the "statewide" water plan. Why?
6. Where may water owners review funding receipts and expenditures of the PRRIP?
7. Can Colorado provide the compact between the lower and upper end of the S. Platte wherein it's apparently declared the upper end committed X acre feet water to the lower end? If one exists, why wasn't it structured as forgiving as the 1923 NE/CO compact (based on 1897 flow rates/precip and snowpack)?
8. Because flow charts show S. Platte River historically dried up around Kersey, CO (depending on snow pack/precip), will lower end provide their dates of appropriation and allotment quantity?
9. Have upper end senior owners been justly compensated for takings (denied use of their water)?  
   Since the following questions, May 9th/10th/11th we faced another flood. Not the magnitude of 2013, but none the less it backed up in part due to: over hydration of upper end, Hwy 85 bridge and Latham ditch blockage and lack of maintenance on the North side of the S. Platte (directly across from Sylvester Farm). Residents, including Fred Stencil and Ramon and Olga Salazar, and the towns of Gilcrest and Evans were significantly impact...again.

One solution: If the lower end needs "relief," please consider building a concrete sided ditch (either in the meridian or barrel pit) along I-76. The river is an inefficient way to move water. Concrete sided ditch would provide the benefits of: Naturally eradicating phreatophytes, creating jobs, reducing evaporation and catch rainfall.  After the senior upper end's allotment quantities are fulfilled, whatever's left could be moved to the lower end via ditch.

______________________________________________________________________

Questions regarding the S. Platte River 5/5/2015
 

1. Whose water right are you talking about?  It's imperative this be addressed, for to date, misleading, incorrect information is used in most news reports.
   A student of Dr. Reagan Waskom's developed a "Date of Appropriation" overlay on the development of water on the S. Platte. We recommend this be shown at the onset of each meeting, to more properly identify water rights.  
2. WAS case lacked defined plaintiffs and defendants. Attorney Akolt represented all in spite of requests to Judge Roger Klein for Akolt's withdrawal from at least 1 side. Lower end (east of Kersey) claimed upper end (west of Kersey) used up their water (depletions), but didn't have to prove harm. Klein ordered shut down of wells, 100% augmentation (which is hydrologically unattainable), and makeup of past depletions to 1975. Questions: Where were the water engineers for the years between 2005 and 1975? Aren't they supposed to "manage" the water? Did they avert their eyes for 30 years while senior (upper end) users allegedly "overused" this significant amount of water?
3. Why don't the state engineers do the job the statutes require them to do?
4. The 5 page 2006 PRRIP agreement with Governor's Freudenthal (WY) and Heineman (NE), DOI Secretary Kempthorne and Governor Owens committed water and money to alleged endangered species in Lexington, NE.
   When the lower end complained (during that same time period), "we don't have any water," where and how did Owens find water to meet with that commitment? 
5.  In-stream flow manipulations contribute to the loss of thousands of acre feet water over the CO-NE border. Yet John Stulp informed us, "Because we sometimes can't meet our water commitment to the PRRIP, we have to make up for it with the financial. Who makes up the PRRIP governance committee? Is there a PRRIP water and financial audit available?
6. Does the lower end have a compact with the upper end to mandatorily deliver X acre feet to them? If not, how did it come to be their water delivery demands now supersede the Senior upper end rights? Particularly when historically, there wasn't water in the river?
7. Does state intend to justly compensate the upper end Senior water right owners for *takings? 
8. Will state compensate the Town of Gilcrest for state's participation in allowing the over hydration of the upper end to the extent of raising the water table from its historic approximate 20 feet to 2 feet and surfacing - which destroyed Gilcrest's waste water treatment plant.
9. Because Reuter-Hess Reservoir is built on a hill with claims, "we'll fill with runoff," how is it said runoff now appears in the form of an approximate 27 acre feet daily? It's been heard that Bob Lembke and Bill Owens might be peeling off S. Platte water and circuitously piping it - perhaps to Parker Water/Reuter-Hess?
10. How can James Eklund develop a Colorado Water Plan and exclude the PRRIP and other major elements that are controlling our water? 

It's common knowledge that Klein's shut down of wells overhydrated the upper end wherein the lower end now uses this over surplus of water to successfully develop an underground reservoir (in the upper end) from which they use this new non-historic perennial flow to build ponds, divert, retime and sell (perhaps to the power plant, federal, Lembke, Owens, pop new pivots?).

Thousands of acre feet allegedly are "wasted" (lost) across the border to NE, yet no one's actually seen said water across the border in Nebraska. Maybe that's why Stulp's claim about the financial commitment?

Upon hearing about said waste, Jim Jahn said, "Yeh, and we're getting all the water you guys on the upper end waste! And I live on the CO NE border!"

I responded, "First off, the upper end doesn't have any water to waste! And if the upper end wasn't denied use of its water, there wouldn't be any water flowing past your place."

He responded, "It wouldn't make any difference at all."

My immediate unspoken thought? Jahn, you completely dashed the entire WAS argument!  

I'll stop here. There are many more questions we'd appreciate media asking each person they interview; beginning with the most important question of all: "Whose water right is it?" Followed by, "Are state engineers doing the job the statutes require them to do?"
The Hwy 85 bridge south of Greeley is another story. For now, please know that because the S. Platte falls outside the defines of "navigable," the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have no authority over it. Is this why the Army Corps has never maintained it?  Governor Hickenlooper should, at-the-least, give the EPA and Army Corps the boot when conjoining private property owners get out their excavators.  

Bob Longenbaugh, hydrological engineer, has over a 50 year history of studying, teaching and managing water in CO. He's partisan and dedicated to the science only!  We urge you to contact him. (970) 209-9297
_____________________________________________________________________________

Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of the Federal
Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Declaration of Goals and Policy

SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act— - it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the *navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the *waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972.

*Waters of the US Under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section (§) 122.2"Waters of the United States" or "waters of the U.S." has a specific meaning:

(a) all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (b) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(c) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds that the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:

(1) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; (2) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (3) which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; (d) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition; (e) tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition; (f) the territorial sea; and (g) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition.

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 means "navigable waters" as 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