> An exact geographical survey is not required, but the description of the relocated or altered canal or ditch easement must be accompanied by electronic global positioning system data in the Montana coordinate system,
Yeah, that'll work great! You don't need one of them expensive geographical-type surveys. All you need is some ELECTRONIC global positioning system data. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Hopefully your State Society is following this bill ??????
Might want to get in touch with them.
> > An exact geographical survey is not required, but the description of the relocated or altered canal or ditch easement must be accompanied by electronic global positioning system data in the Montana coordinate system,
>
> Yeah, that'll work great! You don't need one of them expensive geographical-type surveys. All you need is some ELECTRONIC global positioning system data. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Just get your local geocasher to collect way points around the finished ditch. Hiking grade GPS under canopy with +/- 1000 foot coordinates. Will hold up well the first time a case goes to court against a well done as built survey certified by a PS.
Your State Society needs to talk with P. CONNELL... soon!
Sounds about right.
Montana has been playing "catch up" getting their adjucated water rights put together.
These ditches have easements attached to them, many of them were contructed over 100 years ago. None of them have centerline descriptions and resurveying each alignment isn't going to happen. Not sure what the bill is trying to accomplish as these issues have been settled long ago. Sounds like they are trying to "fix" a problem that already has a solution.
Or...................
Was this a case where some property owner attempted to move a ditch to benefit himself? This smacks of a typical over-the-top way to avoid such bad behavior by the servient property owners.
Or...................
It does seem like an odd law. Maybe it's intended to clear up another code.
As far as the GPS coordinates go, that's typical. Many of the facilities attached to water rights are located that way, stock tanks, reservoir ties, pivots, ect. They aren't trying to get a located easement-after all the ditch already has an easement-just something to plot the location onto their GIS.
Water rights out here are important and complicated. Wyoming has always been ahead of the curve and Montana behind it. So maybe this is part of their attempt to clean up their system, but....
every bill has a story- I'll be down in that neck of the woods tomorrow and I'll chat with the county planner. He should give me a pretty good low-down on this.
As far as the water rights ajudication- things are in a total cluster, er, some what in disarray post MT v PPL.
We were over at DNRC the other day to get a position from them on a stretch of the stillwater.
The current status of navigable rivers is 5 count 'em 5, in the state - and currently there isn't one in NW Montana. [sarcasm]( the county should get busy in the GIS dept. and send out new tax bills on larger acreages all along the Flathead River CHA-CHING!!!!!) [/sarcasm] so what do you do? Call it non- navigable with upland ownership to the thread (currently), but the state may claim the bed at a later date?
That would result in more than a few calls from the title company....
It's not about the location as much as it is about the documentation. Sounds as though they're mainly interested in getting the irrigation systems on the map. Precise location is unnecessary when it comes to ensuring that the system is functioning and well documented.
There are much better ways to accomplish the task than hand-held gps. They'll get much better accuracy simply using aerial photography with a bit of ground truthing from the ditch masters.
JBS
I would use aerial images. Almost every place has them and they often go back many years. It seems fairly easy to then document the build, subsequent changes and current conditions as they stand today.
If they have no digital maps then it would seem they are trying to get a basemap to at least begin to monitor the channels.
Not for property lines (of course, some will misuse them) but for infrastructure management. Sometimes you don't need the bigger hammer when a small one will do.
They'll get much better accuracy simply using aerial photography
You are correct!
Most of the water rights maps are based on aerials.
Certain things like PODs and outfalls need a surveyed location, but most of the fields and ditches are taken from photos.
Of course, the reason to acquire the info in this law is to capture new changes that won't show up in the latest photo. I just don't see that it's necessary. Ditches and ditch companies already are protected. They have a lot of authority over their facilities. Woe be it to the person who tries to divert water out of one without permission or impacts one with construction.
There is quite a bit of "tension" between Wyoming and Montana over water. Wyoming has become extermely anal about everything and since they have been in the forefront of the issue they are in a stronger position. Montana has been playing catch up and maybe this one attempt to get a handle on some issues they have.