Stored water worth from $700 per acre feet to $20,000 per acre feet.
Rural land usually is more than $700 per acre but less than $20k per acre.
A landowner told me that in a different state he had to pay $2100 per hour to a water attorney. Maybe the main reason the State Engineer isn't in charge of water in that state.
It appears that going forward this will become a lucrative profession for young engineers and surveyors. If they can stand dealing with it.
I call BS on $2,100/hr water attorney fee...
How stupid... with rates like that it's cheaper to just go to law school yourself. 🙄
Land without water is, generally, nearly worthless.
As far as an attorneys hourly rate goes - you aren't paying for the hour. You are paying for the 30 years plus of education and experience that led up to that hour. Don't like it? There are attorneys that run less per hour. Try your luck.
I'm now working for a mid-sized city, and I can attest that there is an enormous amount of money and time spent on water. Probably north of 50% of the engineering and operations department's time is spent on water delivery issues, with the other 50% split between all the other things - transportation, sanitary , storm water, etc.
It depends tremendously on which State and the applicable water laws in place. Lose your freedom and you get to pay third parties to know your rights.
Apparently you didn't read the article I linked, and your comment about high dollar attorneys is way off the mark. If you are suggesting that attorneys that cost less than $2,100.00/hour aren't capable, then none of your comments should be taken seriously.
IF there is a "water attorney" charging $2,100/hour, then it's likely the type that work for Nestle to make arrangements for the company to basically lawfare their way in and steal water they're not entitled to so they can turn around and sell bottled water while robbing the locals of their mineral/water rights.
If a municipal water/wastewater system is using $2,100/hour attorneys for "water issues", then they shouldn't be taken seriously either.
But I guess we'll play along with your watermain/stink sewer example.
The $2100 per hour was a comment made to me by a client. Maybe it's an exaggeration, although he seemed serious when he related it to me. The point being that I had finished an extensive permitting process for his lands and he was thinking about doing some more. I warned him it could get expensive so he said if you think it's bad here let me tell you about another state.
So, the point being whatever the charges really are there is no doubt in the western states water is becoming extremely valuable. In western lands there are four main components of surface water delivery. The source, the POD (point of diversion), means of conveyance, and place of use. Clearly these need locations and that means surveyors.
In this state the state engineer is the agency in charge, in other states it's controlled by the courts (so I'm told). Hence the expensive litigation in other areas that seldom happen here. And my comment that it will probably not change in those states.
No one is going to pay that much for an attorney unless there is value. And no, it wasn't for a giant corporation.
@MightyMoe I have no doubt someone made a comment like that in passing, and I know that attorneys can get expensive quick. I was just pointing out that even David Boies doesn't charge that sort of hourly rate, and that guy is a heavy hitter.
The other comment was aimed at the notion that reasonable hourly rates can/should/are based upon the aggregate human experience.
If that was the case and by that logic, every automobile produced would cost in excess of $1 Billion dollars each.
Absurd.
Pick your favorite Mark Twain quote that applies here.
I have to dispute you on this one, what Attorney do you ever see has 30 plus years of education? I don't care if it's an Ivy League school or Harvard, no Attorney is putting 30 years into education. If you mean experience, I have more than 30 years in as a licensed professional and I'm sure that you do to, my billable hourly fee is more than ten times lower but, you work for a public agency that is not for profit.
When you speak of the money spent on design, transportation and distribution of water, that is completely irrelevant to the cost of legal fees because your county would be foolish to not have in house legal staff experienced in that area of practice. They may be pulling down $200K, but certainly not $2,100 hourly.
I'm kind of surprised how emotional some reactions to my earlier posting to this thread seem to be.
In every line of work there are those that, by bringing something very special to the table, command fees far above the average. Even so, it is very unlikely that they stack many hours during which they can justify these really extraordinary rates. But they sometimes do, and so one can claim that these people "charge $xxxx per hour.
For example, probably every surveyor has a rate on their rate sheet for "expert testimony". Probably on the order of $500/hr. There will be a few Robillard types that will command far more. Most us will consider ourselves lucky (or perhaps the opposite?) to collect such fees for more than a few hours in our whole career. Many might never have the opportunity. Still, that rate appears on your rate sheet. So some lawyer charged $2100/hr at some point. I very much doubt that they get that much for every hour they work, or if a very few do they must be providing something very unique - and valuable - to the cases they handle.
Certainly there being a few high rollers, in any walk of life, that can justify very high fees does not imply that the average provider is not competent.
There are cases of abuse, of trying to collect fees that are not justifiable. I'm not going to assume that all such fees are fraudulent, because they aren't.
Finally, I did not write "30 years of education". I wrote "30 years of education and experience".
I would not be surprised to see those attorney rates in select water cases. I started doing water right work a few years ago and found the stakes can run quite high.
I prepared a large proof in a neighboring state. The technical side was a pile of eighth grade algebra. The law side was more complex than a non-compliant subdivision of a nuclear waste site in a national park. With a child care center. I was paid accordingly. The fee would have been considered predatory on any other job. I assumed responsibility for a large right with an early priority date. You can bet your life my rate covered the risk. I expect solid attorneys understand that concept..
Those are bankruptcy and restructuring attorneys.
The kind that certain private equity companies are using to dismantle entire sectors of the US economy.
Most of us paupers don't do work for a $2,100+/hr attorney, so we can't afford to be subscribed to and read all things behind a paywall.
This topic is unfamiliar to me, living in a colonial state and not having to be worried about water rights. In my region you either have to have to pay for water from a municipal unities authority that maintains water towers and sewage collection/treatment facilities.
In the town that I live in, the largest town (area wise) in the largest county of NJ, despite land area, population is close to 7,000, our water supply comes from domestic water wells and we treat our sewer via domestic septic systems. There are some downfalls to that when the power runs out on storms, but the minor inconveniences can be solved by installing a generator.
Our town is rural and largely consisting of preserved farmlands, also pumping water with no fees except for the wells and equipment needed to water hundreds of acres.
Those are bankruptcy and restructuring attorneys.
Yes. Much different than that well-known water rights attorney David Boies.
The point of the link was that $2100 is not out of range for particular people within firms based on their experience and knowledge. The article notes that some in the firm in lower positions were billed out at half as much or less per hour. It is simple enough to also find many 'normal' bankruptcy attorneys with hourly rates in the hundreds of dollars as opposed to the nearly $2,500/hr top fee in that article. Just depends on where they are and what particular cases and clients they are working on/for. Similarly, most attorneys practicing in water rights are not going to be charging the $2,100+ an hour, but that does not mean the original poster was relaying something that was "BS". There will be attorneys basically shuffling papers for permitting while there are also those who are getting in depth into cases that involve significant litigation requiring more in depth knowledge/experience.
In a recent settlement with DuPont and 3M concerning water contamination, the total attorney's fees being sought from the action is based on a percent of the settlement and ends up being almost a billion dollars - and is noted as being below the norm. At least one of the attorneys on the case was a water rights and environmental lawyer. At only $2,100/hr that would be ±476,000 work hours billed out - yes I am simplifying and leaving out any other costs. (Hmm. Why do some people like the percent of the value function to determine fees!!)
Also, the article you linked is not about what an attorney is allowed to charge their client for services. Not all cases end with the awarding of attorney's fees. The article just highlights that the full agreed upon amount of attorney fees may not be recouped from the other party. The original billing rates were noted as ±$1,500/hr. The side that lost was found to be responsible for the other sides "reasonable" attorney fees. The court reviewed the fees and decided to award a lower amount based on the local 'reasonable' hourly rate. That is only 1 of the 12 factors considered in determining the idea of a 'reasonable' fee. If it were a more novel case, the court could have just as easily considered the 'experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys' as a factor and accepted the higher rate when determining the amount to award.
With the average attorney fee being around $300/hr and the (few) high chargers being about $2,500/hr that is over 8 times the average rate to the high rate. I wonder how that pans out in the area of surveying fees. I would not be surprised at all to find something similar, though maybe not as wide of a gap, with surveyors.
