Well, Ohio's voters did not listen to me and approved Ohio's new "water rights" amendment. This breakthrough measure generously gave them rights that they already had. I am convinced that, if any of our organizations in the state that represent water users and managers had shown any leadership whatsoever and informed the voters, they would have thought about the measure some more. However, now it is in the state constitution.

I continue to share the concern that the amendment could cause unexpected consequences and unintentional changes in current law. In particular, we are concerned with the following section: "The rights confirmed under this proposed amendment cannot be impaired or limited by the operation of other sections of the Ohio Constitution, including provisions governing home rule powers of a county, township, or municipal corporation; Public Debt and Public Works; conservation of natural resources; and the prohibition of the use of “initiative” and “referendum” on property taxes." This looks to me like fuel to make the suits fly -- the suits on paper and the people in expensive tailored suits flying in from Texas and Colorado to file them. They know opportunity when they see it, and an Ohio legal system inexperienced with ajudicating water rights.

Maybe such suits will be thrown out ultimately, but it could cost Ohio's ground-water-using utilities (especially its small villages) much money in legal and expert witness fees, instead of using the money to improve infrastructure. I would expect this to make work for hydrogeologists willing to mix it up in the legal sphere, so should we complain?

Note that the Ohio Section AWWA and Ohio Utility Council did not oppose Issue 3. Their legal advisors do not see any problems as long as there is no legislation implementing weird things. However, a virus is not necessarily a threat to your operating system (body or software) without operating instructions, but who wants one around? They lack experience with the legal snarl that is water law adjudication in some states.

We here at Ground Water Science frequently find ourselves in the role of the boy in "the Emperor has no clothes": We're the ones that notice the lapse of reasoning or failure to challenge assumptions. Maybe that's our role in this discussion or maybe we're tilting at windmills again in our quixotic (BTW that's pronounced "ki-hotic" - another lost cause) quest.

So congratulations to you, Sen. Grendell and your cronies. Your political skills trump technical reasoning by many that this makes bad law.  I guess we'll see how this all works out. The rest of you, need a good hydrogeologist now to define ground water resources and potential impacts so you can defend your cause against the neighbors? Go to the Home page and get our contact information, or ask me for a card when you see me.