Getting deep in the weeds

You could always channel your inner @kris Morgan and reply ƒ?? I jump for cash , beotch ƒ??. (Pretty sure he originated that one a while back.)

@rankin_file

That was a fun post, of course this request/demand isn't from the client's attorney, so they don't want to pay for it.?ÿ

I'm a little confused. Why call it a water line and not drain or storm drain? Are they pumping the ditch water out through a pressurized pipe?

I don't know if it needs to be changed. You are technically correct, but 90% of the population will think potable water when they hear the term, "water line".?ÿ

Posted by: @peter-lothian

Probably because in that region you don't think in terms of draining it away, but rather capturing all you are allowed for your use.

The attorney can spell it out in the conveyance document. Doesn't matter what the exhibit title is if the language specifies that it is for transporting water from Ditch A across ROW B as shown in attached exhibit. Intent is pretty clear at that point, and would take the attorney a couple of minutes to change.

But then again, if they reaaaally want it, I too would jump for cash...

@aliquot

Not in these parts they wouldn't

@peter-lothian

Yes, it's a pressurized pipe, it even has relief valves. I would never call this a storm drain. It's a pipeline that conveys water applied to a territorial water appropriation. The technical term is "Means of Conveyance".

There is no confusion what this pipeline is or used for. The grants are from multiple grantors sharing the facility.?ÿ

Sure, the attorney can put it in the conveyance, and that is why I said that I don't think it needs to be changed?ÿ but it it does look a little unprofessional.?ÿ

@mightymoe

I think you have been on this site long enough to recognize that using localisms can lead to massive confusion in the future. Local terms are great for everyday conversation, but legal documents, including surveys, should use nationally?ÿ commonly accepted language, to ensure the intention can be recovered far into the future.

But we are in the weeds, I don't think you need to change this if you are not inclined too. Just trying to explain where the attorney is probably coming from.?ÿ

@mightymoe

Irrigation pipeline is a term everyone will understand?ÿ

The attorney would win that argument in my area. Waterline easements and storm water easements are very different things.

@norman-oklahoma

Again, it's not a storm drain or storm water.?ÿ

@mightymoe

Perhaps in Wyoming. Not in Oregon. In Oregon it's a stormwater facility.

@norman-oklahoma

Wyoming is the gold standard for water issues. Terms appropriate to describe this facility would not include stormwater, that would not be a valid description. The closest description that would be valid for a similar situation would be a return flow facility which this clearly isn't.?ÿ

Wyoming's Adjudicated Water System is the example other states have tried and failed to emulate.?ÿ

Basically it's how they originally approached the process.?ÿ

Wyoming is also the only state (so I've been told) where surveyors are given authority to map, permit and describe water allocation.?ÿ

Fantastic reference book for local words associated with Land.?ÿ

https://www.amazon.com/Home-Ground-Language-Landscape-2006-09-15/dp/B01N8Y4TRU/ref=sr_1_13?dchild=1&qid=1601560215&refinements=p_27%3ABarry+Lopez&s=books&sr=1-13&text=Barry+Lopez

?ÿ