Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[rogerbridge] 07/12/2014 19:38

That could open a can of worms SG.

[superg1] 07/12/2014 18:38

I'm having 'fun' here. I am in some ways (don't strike me down)hoping IOF can have a round 2 at another hearing for any valid objection.

However my fun would have to be based on a beneficial use claim as I'm finding quite a den of apparent deception (subject to checking water laws) for the other permits.

For certain depots and applicants a bit of a pattern is emerging.

EG I mentioned wild cat trucking who have 13 trucks and 12 drivers. 3 permits checked and a total of 900 acre feet so far. I have about 15 to check.

They can't possibly truck 400 acre feet in one LOI let alone 900 acre feet in 3.

Then Agri industries feature again, letters signed by folk addressing it to John Ames the water permit applicant. One states how expensive water can be so they are keen for John to build a depot. It seems to me John Ames owns Agri and Agri don't do water supply to the oil industry. So he is providing letters to himself but someone else at Agri signing them. If that is allowed then why doesn't Mr Ames simply identify his own need for his own company as part of the permit application.


TNT well services are another repetitive LOI buyer ??? I need to do some more work on them.

The issue being is if IOF have to go through the beneficial use point again at a hearing, it's potentially going to be very embarrassing for Denise Biggar and co who have been signing these permits off without a thought.

Yet when IOF provide genuine LOIs they question the validity of them and allege water speculation.

[henry9th1] 06/12/2014 22:58

Quite right Arlington, final bear trap sellers all but dried up and time to fly or flee if short. Kind regards William

[engelo] 06/12/2014 20:12

Good to hear there's a kinder side to the US attitude to wildlife: they generally shoot anything that moves from squirrels to bears ;-)



edit back in Montana



Don't get sucked in: sounds as bad as the water laws :-)

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/12/2014 19:11

Doubt you even grasp my point.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/12/2014 17:14

They're winding you up Graham, stick a volume chart in the header bud.

[superg1] 06/12/2014 16:43

Sancler I forgot some extra bits re wording.

First of all it only affects endangered species which are the Least tern, Piping plover and the Pallid Sturgeon. Two of those are birds.

The offence is to take them

Take is defined as

“Take” is defined in the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

The main problem is fishing, as fishing is allowed for Shovel-nosed sturgeon. Those fish are almost identical to Pallid Sturgeon.

Look how daft their own claims are:

Shovelnose sturgeon so closely resemble pallid sturgeon that the two species are difficult to differentiate. Law enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the two sturgeon species. The roe of the two species cannot be distinguished by genetic analysis, making it difficult to enforce the regulations to prevent harvest of pallid sturgeon and their roe.
Commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon has resulted in the harvest of pallid sturgeon. This harvest of pallid sturgeon significantly affects the survival and recovery of the species in some portions of its range.

That's a paragraph that contradicts itself. EG, "We can't even tell them apart genetically and as a result of fishing for the other types Pallid sturgeon are harvested"

Yet they don't know if the fish harvested are Pallid sturgeon.

So commercial fishing which is allowed may be destroying them but they can't tell.

The Culbertson objection re that point is farcical.

IOF on their screen should add a sign saying, Shovel-nosed sturgeon feeding area, no access is afforded to Pallid sturgeon, fish will be challenged to produce identification. IOF point out that we have no intent to take or engage you. Fish that chew through the carbon steel screen do so at their own risk. *Warning suction risk* They could add the number for the Samaritans just in case some see it as an opportunity.

[superg1] 06/12/2014 16:11

Che

It's not a requirement to cover wildlife issues for applications under 4000 acre feet.
For over 4000 or more they add in extra criteria to be proven by the applicant.

'The department may not issue a permit for an appropriation of 4,000 or more acre-feet of water a year and 5.5 or more cubic feet per second of water unless the applicant proves by clear and convincing evidence that:

(i) the existing demands on the state water supply, as well as projected demands, such as reservations of water for future beneficial purposes, including municipal water supplies, irrigation systems, and minimum streamflows for the protection of existing water rights and aquatic life;

(vi) the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed use of water as determined by the department

Those criteria to be proven by IOF do not exist for the amount they applied for, they don't have to prove anything, so an objection can't be valid if there is no criteria for it.



In any case they have a screen as in the engineering report it talks of an air burst system to clear it.

Can we get back to toasters now please?

[che7win] 06/12/2014 14:47

"So all you need is a screen at the extraction point. Culbertson list a screen in place in their application, but IOF don't"

This begs the question, why woukd IOF not cover all bases leaving no room for doubt on screening? surely not hard to explicitly state this?

[superg1] 06/12/2014 13:58

PCjoe.

I didn't know about macca's comments but have no interest. I filtered the thread owners which scrubs them from my list. I have no interest in what they say, but must admit that at one point I thought Sancler was just Macca under another name.

The wildlife point on species being taken is simple.

If you participate in something that intends to take fish or may take fish then you need an exemption certificate to carry out whatever you are doing which could be fishing.

If you aren't intending to take fish, and you have measures in place to avoid taking fish the whole argument is null and void.

It would be like buying land but the firearms dept trying to stop you buying land because typically land owners have shotguns and you need a certificate for that.

You could apply that to driving too, as protected species are killed all the time but I don't need to have exemption certificates or permits in place to drive.

If I had some badger calling device strapped to my car with essence of a female badger in season being sprayed out in all directions one might consider my motives are not purely about driving.

IOF want water from a river not fish, they will extract water and use a screen to stop fish. If they use a screen (and they will) there is nothing relevant.

[sancler] 06/12/2014 13:19

superg1

I haven't researched it beyond noting that, despite findings on legal availability in very similar terms in Atlantis' and the Culberton's cases, there was still an attempted objection on legal availability.

You have researched it, and explained your 100% confidence. Thanks.

Back to lurking

[pcjoe] 06/12/2014 12:53

I think it was Macca that cryptically first raised the possibilty of Fish & Game Dept involvement re the objection - I see that this angle has been raised in the last few posts

Is the name of the objector known? - Could it be possibly seen on any official releases so far?

& if not how could anyone on this site get hold of such info?

Re Ames - The Dept does appear to be on very cosy terms with IOFs potential rivals.... - Maybe Dragon lady should be put on the spot re this at some future point if obstruction persists

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/12/2014 12:10

Yeah, that's all well and good Graham.

For Christ's sake pop a volume chart in the header because this descending wedge is bullish if volumes rise.

Tell him MELLY ffs...

[superg1] 06/12/2014 11:47

Sancler

I've been through those types of events and dismissed them.

For the taking of species where activities are intended to take or may result in such a take, the applicant has to apply for exemption in relation to the taking of species.

('The applicant' part isn't a direct reference to water permit applicants)

If you are not taking any species or have applications in place to prevent that then you are not taking or intending to take species, so you don't need exemption.

So all you need is a screen at the extraction point. Culbertson list a screen in place in their application, but IOF don't. IOF clearly have one though as they talk of an air-burst system to clear it from time to time. They will have one I'm sure of that to prevent debris ingress too.

But then the act covers endangered species. I looked those up to and the one most at risk seems to be the Pallid Sturgeon. Those things can be 5 feet long. They expect all the wild ones in the Missouri to be extinct by 2018, they blame the US army corps for dam building destroying the habitat of the young fish who drift down into the dammed areas. They have discovered they no longer spawn in the wild so that issue has gone. They now stock the river through rearing fish elsewhere.

So in that case if you look at the exemption certificate required, IOF have no intention of taking species.

If there was ever a case in play it would be for the wildlife lot to prove such species were being taken and then take action post event. A matter which can simply be avoided by having a screen in place.

The criteria is if you are taking species you need to apply for exemption, or show measures are in place that prevent a take, then you don't need exemption.

That is a law to prevent someone taking species without an exemption, if you have measures to prevent a take you don't need an exemption.

The only obvious fact in that case to stop ingress of fish, is to have a screen. So if the wildlife crew state a 'fact' that IOF don't have a screen. Then all IOF say is 'Yes we do', so the claim isn't fact. There is no way IOF wouldn't have a screen for that very reason as it would fish and debris would probably disable the system.

It can't come under legally available as that's to do with flow rates. Maybe adverse effect but that relates to other water rights.

They can't provide facts guessing at what an outcome might be if certain measures aren't in place.

Even if IOF didn't have a screen are they then saying they just need exemption.

Obviously not as they neither side want fish being sucked out of the river.

It's a pointless and baseless issue raised in that case, I looked at all the angles as you can see.

Hence my engagement with you to try and identify the possibilities.

Please note my post about applications of 4000 care feet or more which then start to include evidence required from the applicant in relation to wildlife and other related matters. Those requirements are not applicable to an application under 4000 acre feet.

Iof have nothing to prove in that regard, but quite simply they will have a screen anyway.

As you can see I do quite a bit of reading on the topic, but there is no point raising that one as I'm happy with my understanding of it and it's not relevant.

A similar example over here is that of the great crested newt. That polythene barrier and a series of buried buckets some might see when looking at new housing estates being built, is a barrier to protect them while the builds go on. Without them the planners wouldn't let them build.

[sancler] 06/12/2014 10:31

superg1

I don’t share your 100% confidence on the legal availability front.

In the Culbertson Water Depot case the Montana-Prairie Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Federal Department of the Interior raised an objection on legal availability grounds. Their case was that taking water from the river at the relevant location “may result in an unauthorized taking of federal trust species” in contravention of the (federal) Endangered Species Act of 1973

In the event the objection was ruled invalid because, despite a deficiency letter, the objector did not provide any FACTS indicating that it would do so. The 50-odd page response to the deficiency letter consisted only of copies of the Act and a relevant Order. Whether that was because there were no such facts, or because the objector didn’t understand the requirement, or couldn’t get its act together within the 15 day time limit, or what, I’ve no idea. Nor do I really have any idea (and its not something I feel competent properly to research) whether, if an objection on these lines could get through the validity test, it would have any real prospect of success.

But it does mean that my view of the possibilities is a bit more open than yours seems to be.

[che7win] 06/12/2014 09:11

Thanks superg,
I'm just wondering if Mr Big expects imminent good news on the water which I'm not aware of.

[superg1] 06/12/2014 09:01

MM3

I bet it will take about 10 internal emails to find out if it has a plug or not.

Che

Having thrashed the laws to death, as stated before point 1 to 3 seemed never to be in the game.
Diversion raised by the bureau was also found to be possible by the hearing examiner. In fact a paragraph suggested it has to be not impossible. Sancler and I agree it's highly unlikely from the specifications that they could carry on that amount of supply 365 24/7.

That leaves beneficial use. Someone could allege the letters of intent are false documents but they would need to prove that (not happening).
The one thing the bureau raised was water speculation. Beneficial use is the one area that leaves various points to raise. So if any point is deemed to be valid then in theory that is the most obvious one.

The fact a point has been contested may be irrelevant in determining if it's valid under the objection criteria.

That is the angle we can't cover, you could get near identical points raised by an objector. Beneficial use is the one criteria that is not confined by finite data. Physically and legally available, adverse effect and diversion are all confined to figures spelt out in bureau records.

[mister big] 05/12/2014 23:20

Alas no caviar or super boats , just a pint at the white lion with old french au pair ! ( when I say old 26) very pleasant !
I think all lines of enquiry are at an end with iofina - next update we will hopefully see progress !

[che7win] 05/12/2014 23:06

U.S. Army adopting iodine product for fighting Ebola

[monkeymagic3] 05/12/2014 20:25

SuperG - because then I would be a boring ;)

[dcgray21] 05/12/2014 19:57

MM3 - great stuff . Keep us updated.