local ownership of local resources

Navigation

User login

Online users

Dylan Carlson
JstPlnOnry

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart
eristalis

local ownership of local resources

Submitted by chris on Wed, 02/15/2006 - 12:24pm.

today's paper reports that the Olympia city council took action to reclaim our water rights at the brewery.

As I understand it, the current owner is in danger of defaulting on his loan. If he does, then the water rights will go to his lender in California or to the highest bidder.

With an impending worldwide water crises, selling off water rights to a company seems kind of assinine. Perhaps it makes sense for a community to lease those rights with a time limit, but not relinquish ownership.

I still don't think it should be legal for a company to determine how a community is able to manage it's local resources such as water. (e.g. when Miller closed the brewery in 2003, they were able to stipulate that beer could never be brewed on that site again - I can't find an online resource to quote for that though .. anyone?)

In any case, I'm so thrilled that our city council is trying save our water rights I think we should throw them a thank you party for not allowing it to languish.

chris's blog
Login or register to post comments

I remember reading in The Oly

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 02/15/2006 - 5:33pm.

I remember reading in The Olympian about the beer stipulation, too.

The reason you can stipulate something is by putting it in a contract.

If I have a piece of property that I want to sell but I don't want the circus to ever take place on it, I simply include in the contract some provision forbidding the circus from ever having an event on the property or else (fill in penalty).

By signing the contract, the person purchasing the property is agreeing to whatever language is in it.

Here's the problem I have with this: The City didn't own the property and thus didn't own the rights that went along with it.

Let's say that Olympia doesn't have enough apples but you, Chris, have an entire orchard. Do you think it would be fair for Olympia to condemn a portion of your property not because the property is unsafe or unfit for development but only because the local government decided, rather than pay for your apples, they're simply going to take them.

I asked Foutch about this whe

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 02/15/2006 - 5:44pm.

I asked Foutch about this when I interviewed him back in August or September. He said it was just a matter of money. If a buyer wanted to brew beer, they would just have to pay for the right.

TFI- Are you arguing again

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 9:33am.

TFI-

Are you arguing against a free market? It seems like it. If this was a private business move, and the company started selling the city water at inflated prices which then affected the size of your water bill, you would still likely defend it because of free market rights, no?

It seems that the city did this before anyone else could. A bold move, questionable even, but not illegal, right?

No, it's not illegal at all.

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 5:30pm.

No, it's not illegal at all. Questionable? I think so. I don't think you'll hear too many people saying government should exercise these types of powers too often.

In my mind, the bottom line is that these water rights were purchased as a part of private property. Olympia simply came in and condemned land (although there's "fair" compensation involved, I still view this as no more than government seizing property) in order to make public what was private.

To show how shady the entire situation was, they didn't even approach the owner about purchasing the property.

If Olympia feels their community is in such a need of water, why not approach the public and ask them if they want to pay?

I think (no, I know) I'm misreading your first paragraph, though. Can you shoot me a PM and clarify?

"In my mind, the bottom line

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 6:43pm.

"In my mind, the bottom line is that these water rights were purchased as a part of private property. Olympia simply came in and condemned land (although there's "fair" compensation involved, I still view this as no more than government seizing property) in order to make public what was private."

Ahem - I seem to remember that the original holders of these water rights were not paid for them in the first place. Anyone want to speak with the local tribes? Or maybe explain how water rights are bought from the Sound and the Deschutes River basin, which used them for eons prior to our encroachment?

If you really want to argue that this is an encroachment on private property, you have to argue that the current property holder was using these rights and could continue to maintain the property. Or you have to stand with the boaters in Budd Inlet to save their boats / homes...

From my understanding this mo

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 5:53pm.

From my understanding this move only effects the water rights, not the ownership of the land.

The way I read the article, t

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 6:36pm.

The way I read the article, the City had "no interest" in the land beyond water.

The city will ask the court to set the market value for water rights and give the city access to the land so officials can pinpoint where wells, pipes and pump houses are.
The city has no interest in the land beyond water rights, Hall said.
Court papers filed Tuesday morning encompass the entire property, but officials plan to narrow the request to those areas tied to water.

Again, I might be off of my game but the way I read that, the City is taking possession of physical land.

Regarding purchasing the water rights, I missed this portion:

With hope of buying water rights from All-American drying up, officials in the three cities began talking loosely about meeting to set a regional strategy for buying the land to get the water. But Olympia’s decision took Tumwater and Lacey by surprise.

So, the three did talk about purchasing the land directly from the owner.

Evidently, Olympia decided they didn't want to do that.

sorry I haven't been monitori

Submitted by chris on Sat, 02/18/2006 - 4:47pm.

sorry I haven't been monitoring this blog - Well, I know the entire issue of water rights and imminent domain (isn't this kind like imminent domain?) is fairly complex and I'm not a lawyer. But the way I see it is ... it wasn't very long ago that Gary Locke verified that rainwater cachement systems are technically illegal because rainwater is a state resource and is needed in the aquifer. With that in mind, I fail to see how or why a corporation has the right to regulate and control what a community is able to do with water already in the aquifer. It seems like "special rights" for corporations. So, the move by the city council to do something about it is gutsy and admirable. Of course we'll have to wait and see if there are any not-so-admirable motivations. In one way it's kind of a pro-growth move. From an idealistic perspective, I believe that critical resources such as water in an aquifer should belong to a public commons and simply not for sale.

Why is it that we can't share

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 6:56pm.

Why is it that we can't share? Why do some seek to exercise control over this situation and the domination of others?

Can't we all just get along?

City staff and council have s

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/16/2006 - 7:23pm.

City staff and council have said they intend to meet with Lacey and Tumwater to discuss how everyone can be included. That might mean that Oly is going to charge them for water, or that they really are going to share. Speculating at this point is a waste of time. We'll just have to wait and see. If you are concerned about it, go to a council meeting and let them know how you feel. There is a process we can use.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: