I do think it is appropriate to not require every house to be provided with a virtually unlimited supply of water. If we are going to require every house to have it, I think that the water should be metered and people should be held to a more responsible level of use. A $25-$75 per year fee to use as much water as possible is simply ridiculous.

As to the politics of water districts throughout the valley, I have to agree that NMID, Settlers, and several others tend to treat all their customers in the same ignorant way. There are several in the North end of the valley that actually seem to have adapted to the urbanization of their districts quite well. Wether it is legislated or simply done at the district level, all of the water providers are going to need to understand that their customers are more and more urban than agricultural. As the farmers that love their positions as “water lords” move on to greener pastures the district’s customer service skills will surely improve. I wish I thought the same about the water delivery.

Our trouble with NMID combined with all of the other horrible NMID stories we have heard over the last couple of weeks has left us wanting NOTHING to do with NMID anymore. Dave’s proposal here means all new homeowners will fall under NMID’s power umbrella.

The positives are cheaper water and getting to use what you are already paying for. The negatives are being unable to opt out from NMID and probably heavier use of that precious resource because it is cheaper.

I was going to opt out immediately. But now that Senator David Langhorst is working on some legislation, I think I’ll hang in for the year to see what happens. If Senator Langhorst is successful with his bill, all district landowners will have an equal vote in irrigation district elections instead of a vote proportional to acreage ownership. True Democracy!

Most of the fallout from this $4.78 fiasco came in the form of multiple stories of horrible treatment of NMID customers by NMID personnel. The homeowners and small landowners have no cloutr within NMID because they have no votes. That may change!

How else will NMID be forced to treat all customers with decency and humility?

EDITOR NOTE–The Langhorst proposal sounds amazingly similar to the U.S. Supreme Court “one man one vote” philosophy. Owners of big houses or commercial properties who pay more taxes don’t get more votes, why should larger consumers of water get more votes?

Statement of Purpose of 1976 House Bill No. 593
which created $ 3 31-3805 and 31-3895:
provides three options subdividing:
1. That irrigation water be transferred from
the subdivision to other lands;
2. distribution of water to subdivision lots;
3. or a written statement to buyers that
they will not receive water but will receive
bills even though water is not delivered.

The Guardian’s refund on his kindness is merely a house that has fallen through the cracks. If you read the statute thoroughly, you will find option 3 must be in a Notice at the time of the Earnest Money agreement before the property is bought. The potential owner should know upfront what legalities they will be getting into before the purchase.

I can’t speak to the specifics of the Bandhauer’s case, but it seems to me that if their lot was created after 31-3805 was adopted, then somebody (seller) broke the law. Funny thing about our law, IC 31-3806 explains the ramifications for violating IC 31-3805. I don’t think we need more laws, maybe just a better understanding of the process to enforce current law. I think the seller, buyer (Bandhauer’s), NMID, and the land use agency all have some responsibility to understand and comply with the law. In response to Gordon…you may be correct that the “city nor the county — nor, for that matter, the state nor the feds nor the U.N.” will stop the evil developer, the state has at least told the individual buyer how to prevent themselves from being “trapped” as the Guardian thinks the Banhauers were.

In response to Eric’s question about the water consumption by different land uses (farming vs residential) or gravity vs. pressure irrigation…Flow meters throughout the subdivisions and field of the valley show a roughly 35-40% higher use by the residential users. Obviously they don’t (atleast shouldn’t) exceed their allocated water right, but they use every last drop of it every day they can. Farmers tend to be a little more responsible with their water and use only what their crops need. Us lovely single family dweller types have no end to our “thirst”.

And a couple of quick points about the original story. Guardian you finish by telling of the benefits of your proposed law that already exists…I don’t see how any home owner is “forced” to water with costly domestic water as they can always stop using the water and xeriscape….I don’t see how providing irrigation water to more households will help prevent the waste of irrigation water and help the environment…I don’t see the cost benefit to a home owner who now gets to buy a more expensive lot with irrigation system installed(unless you assume that developers are so charitable they won’t pass the irrigation system costs on to a buyer)…and I don’t see the harm to the irrigation district if someone “opts” out.

EDITOR NOTE–MM, can’t agree that we “missed” on this one. We agree with xeriscape concept, but if the land already has a water right, we suggest using that irrigation water INSTEAD of domestic water or further depletion of the aquifer. We are not really very far apart.

This is the most interesting comment to me. As land is developed and water is not provided, more water becomes available for those who can access it. I am pretty sure the districts don’t give up the water right for that developed land. I am curious who uses more irrigation water-a quarter-acre residential lot? or a quarter-acre field?

Don’t rightly see what this has to with growthophobia. Seems to me more like you’re a thiefophobe — cuz charging for a product they don’t provide is just plain theft. And doing it by force of a lien makes it robbery.

Actually, your suggestion is a good one — but it wouldn’t necessarily stop the dreaded growth, it seems it sure would stop the theft/robbery if enforced.

Of course, we all know that if it became law and a developer then built a subdivision without provisions to provide the water, neither the city nor the county — nor, for that matter, the state nor the feds nor the U.N. — will say, well, tough, Mr. developer, you’ll just have to tear down your subdivision and not rebuild it until you do it legally.
That has never happened, and I doubt that it ever will.

EDITOR NOTE–The idea was that if the developer had to spend money to provide water, the cost of subdividing may be just enough to discourage a development or two.