Guest Column
Eureka! A Working Compromise on Water Rights
Keeping water (and therefore its inhabitants) in Western rivers and streams is no small feat when just about any human use of the resource has priority. But water leasing is making some headway.
By Guest Writer, 8-31-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: The North Fork of the Blackfoot. Photo courtesy of Trout Unlimited/ Montana Water Project | |
|
Wasson Creek now flows all summer long. That’s cause for celebration because the upper section of the small creek, located near Helmville, Montana, is home to a vital population of pure-strain westslope cutthroat trout that had been cut off from the lower section by seasonal irrigation diversions. For the first time in decades, cutthroat can migrate down to Spring Creek, which eventually joins Nevada Creek, which in turn empties into the Blackfoot River above a stretch where fisheries have been in decline. Keeping water in Wasson Creek increases the likelihood that the celebrated river that, thanks to Norman Maclean and Robert Redford, runs unimpeded and unpolluted through the American imagination will continue to be inhabited by real native trout.
That Wasson Creek is free-flowing again is due to the efforts of Trout Unlimited’s Montana Water Project (MWP), which was set up ten years ago to test an unusual strategy for increasing in-stream flow—leasing private water rights. Along with the Montana Water Trust (MWT), established in 2001, the MWP believes that one of the most effective ways to resolve disputes over water use is to employ incentives—ranging from outright cash payments to providing improvements like new wells and more efficient irrigation equipment—to persuade ranchers, farmers, and other landowners to voluntarily return water to streams. Both groups specialize in developing arrangements that serve conservation ends while in no way challenging or encroaching upon private property rights, a hybrid approach that not long ago few would have thought possible, especially in the historically contentious arena of water ownership.
And although leasing has its share of critics, the results have been encouraging. MWP and MWT have negotiated about three dozen leases in basins on both sides of the Continental Divide, from the Clark Fork, Blackfoot, Bitterroot, and Flathead to the Madison, Missouri, and Yellowstone. Besides increasing in-stream flow and improving fisheries throughout the region, they also are developing a promising model for stream restoration, one that stresses cooperation over confrontation, capitalizing on the interests of traditional landowners rather treating them as an obstacle. “Putting water back into streams is a new discipline,” says Stan Bradshaw, staff attorney for MWP. “We’re feeling our way along.” What they’ve found, Bradshaw explains, is that “how water fits into the overall ecosystem is more complicated than it seems.” That’s largely because the “fit” depends as much on lifestyles and longstanding habits as it does on cubic feet per second, fish counts, and water temperature.
Using water rights leasing to restore streams represents an unexpected convergence of two very different and often violently opposed schools of thought about natural resources. On the one hand are economists who believe that the solution to all environmental problems is the free market, which presupposes the privatization of natural resources, a notion that gives a lot of westerners the willies, to say the least. Nevertheless, in the 1980s the free marketeers began promoting water markets as a solution to the increasing number of bitter water disputes throughout the West. On the other hand are conservationists who, despite their belief that publicly held natural resources should remain that way forever, have grown dissatisfied with costly, protracted litigation and the one-size-fits-all hammer of regulation, which, in their view, too often yield more ill-will than desirable, enduring solutions.
Such dissatisfaction has set in among many people working on in-stream flow issues because water rights are so firmly established, both legally and culturally, that any attempt to return to pre-European settlement conditions would be futile. In the West, water law is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation, which means that the first person to use water in a beneficial way holds the right. Traditionally, the “first in time, first in right” principle applied to water diverted for mining and agriculture but eventually other uses were recognized as beneficial, in particular, to meet industrial and municipal needs. That led to the over-appropriation of many streams across the West, a problem that’s aggravated by drought, all the more so a drought that’s beginning to look like a long-term climate change. Attempts to legislate fixes—by limiting the amount of water removed for certain purposes at certain times of the year, for example—have been stymied, however, because any newly established water rights are always junior to existing rights, in other words, those who were “first in time.” The sixth-generation rancher trumps all who follow.
In Montana, whose Constitution clearly states that the surface water is owned by the public, some activists view the prior appropriation doctrine, especially now that so many streams and fish populations are suffering, as fundamentally unfair. Why should a rancher make money by leasing something that he doesn’t own? “I deeply grieve that we have to pay for what is essentially a public resource,” says Pat Munday, who’s been involved in conservation efforts in the Big Hole and upper Clark Fork watersheds for the past 20 years. On a philosophical level, Munday adds, he’d like to see a consortium of conservation groups file a lawsuit to set up minimum in-stream flows, forcing the state give as much weight to present-day ecological needs as to historic uses. But even if that could succeed, and succeed in time to make a difference—two very big ifs—the result might be not be entirely pleasing. Ranchers who don’t have enough water to ranch will be replaced by other kinds of landowners, with other notions of how open space should be used, including carving it up. “I’m not sure it’s in our long-range best interest to kick people off the land,” says MWP’s Bradshaw. “We need their help.”
Keeping ranching and farming families on the land was certainly on the minds of those who established the country’s first private leasing entity—the Oregon Water Trust (OWT). Two changes in the way surface water is managed made it possible. In the late 1980s, Oregon expanded its water code to include the well-being of fish and other aquatic life, outdoor recreation, and the protection of aesthetic values. In other words, keeping water in a stream was legally recognized as a beneficial use. The second crucial step taken by the state legislature was to pass a law permitting private groups to lease water rights, in particular, senior water rights. “First in time” became negotiable. With that, the stage was set. OWT formed in 1993, then began knocking on the doors of ranchers in watersheds that were environmentally degraded. Since then, the pioneering trust has completed water rights transactions with more than 200 landowners, keeping about 55,000 acre-feet of water in streams annually, water that otherwise would be diverted, while helping to restore almost 1,000 miles of Oregon’s creeks and rivers.
Other states in the Pacific Northwest have followed suit, setting up leasing initiatives via various administrative entities, including state and federal agencies, established conservation organizations like Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited, and stand-alone groups, such as the Montana Water Trust, whose sole purpose is negotiating water rights transactions. A direct descendant of the Oregon experiment, MWT was founded seven years ago by a young environmental lawyer named John Ferguson who had done pro bono work for OWT while living in Portland. “I wouldn’t characterize myself as a free marketeer,” says Ferguson, who last year left MWT for private practice, adding that his primary interest was finding tools with immediate promise rather than fighting battles that may be unwinnable or, at best, interminable. What he observed in Oregon had convinced him “that collaboration fosters positive relationships, which are more effective over the long run.”
There was no want of opportunity. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks had already identified a staggering number of state streams that were chronically dewatered—some 4,000 in all. Ferguson and his staff initially focused on creeks close to their Missoula headquarters, in the middle Clark Fork and Bitterroot basins. MWT’s first contract didn’t impress the skeptics of leasing—water flow in a section of Nine Mile Creek was increased by .2 cfs—but it underscored one of the operating principles of both MWT and TU’s Montana Water Project. As Laura Ziemer, MWP director, puts it, “A little water goes a long way.” Tributaries serve as the spawning and rearing grounds for mainstem fish populations, and small additions of water are often all that’s needed to provide favorable habitat. The lease on Wasson Creek, for example, restores only .5 cfs to in-stream flow, but it does so during spawning season, and that’s enough to enable trout to move freely up and down the creek—and, thus, help replenish the cutthroat fishery in the middle Blackfoot.
Another lesson from the Wasson Creek experience is that merely getting water into streams isn’t enough to reverse the decline in local fisheries. Spring Creek, for instance, which Wasson flows into, had long been damaged by livestock, turning it into a warm, sluggish stream that further isolated the cutthroat population in Wasson. Only after the banks of Spring Creek were repaired and other habitat improvements were made were the fish able to move freely down to the river. “That’s why we work with partners like the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service,” says Barbara Hall, who recently took over as executive director of MWT. “So many factors affect the health of a stream,” she explains, “that we have to cooperate with other folks to be able to do the comprehensive restoration that’s needed.”
In all instances, the most important partners are the landowners. And because a particular landowner’s water rights exist within a complex web of senior and junior water rights, as well as informal water use practices that have been in place for generations and include neighbors and their interrelationships, the nature and degree of his cooperation depends as much on the socioeconomic features of the watershed as they do the biological and hydrological. Each transaction must be tailored to individual needs and conditions, which means that leases can entail permanent agricultural improvements, seasonal supplementation of critical supplies (hay, for instance), cash payments, or combinations of the three. While such flexibility obviously is needed, it also raises questions about the range of applicability and sustainability of leasing. “Unlike other markets,” Munday observes, “water leasing has adopted an extremely private case by case approach.” According to Munday, who also engages in the art of the possible, recently helping MWP negotiate a lease on a creek outside Butte, “No one has reliable data about what water is worth.” What it’s been worth to MWT, according to Hall, has ranged from $3 to $55 an acre-foot, and that, in her estimation, averages out to a pretty good deal. But as the value of streamside land increases, and more ranches are sold to people with no interest in ranching, the price of cold, clean water may rise so high that groups like MWT and MWP won’t be able to compete. When Montana passed legislation allowing private parties to lease water rights, speculators and developers weren’t excluded.
The prospect of a 400-house subdivision outbidding all others for water rights adds force to one of Laura Ziemer’s mantras: “Fish need ranchers.” It also underscores the urgency of the situation and, by extension, the need to bypass the courts in favor of immediate action. “We have to develop communities of interest,” Bradshaw says. “Otherwise, there’s no hope.” In other words, to save the resource that has caused more conflict in the West than any other, they must find ways to persuade people to cooperate, to trust one another, a circle that also includes themselves. And that requires untold hours of neighborly conversations in landowners’ front yards, doorways, and kitchens. Small wonder that many water rights agreements take years to negotiate. As Bradshaw, now an old hand at the process, puts it, “Nothing happens fast in stream flow restoration.”
Nice job, Edwin,
but do you have some numbers on the fiscal participation of the partners, at least in terms of percentages. Basically, which entities are paying what share?
With 4000 chronically dewatered streams, leasing will only buy a fraction of the relief desperately needed for fish. The belief that abandoning Public Trust strategies engenders new-found trust among anti-environmentalists is a common theme these days. Only limited success so far. Keeping ranches from subdivisions is also a market-driven crap shoot in today's deregulated West. Environmental funding has shifted to "incentives," which in turn drives groups' strategies further away from creative democratic/Public Trust solutions. In America (and Montana), money talks, leaving most people wondering when government will get the guts to tackle public policy solutions that level the playing field for fish and the majority. A lot of folks just want Montana's historically corrupt system of water over-appropriation to end.
Comment By bear bait, 9-03-08As a farm manager, water is one of my areas of concern. The farm I am with is drip irrigated by my request, because I wanted to be ahead of the curve in water issues. By not overhead irrigating (undulating land and low stream drop precludes ditch irrigation), and instead using drip tubes, we keep our plants clean and dry. The water savings is more than 50%. We have no runoff to pollute, as we now do our fertilizer through the drip, and some of our pesticides as well. Our spray program is Bt. and fungicides, in combinations to avoid pest resistance, and we have an integrated pest management program. We will never be organic, but will always be light users of pesticides and fertilizers due to how we use our water. Better than half our water right is never used, but we will defend it vigorously for our future.
The owner has another farm that is not being irrigated, and we lease the water right back to the State of Oregon, which actually costs US money to do, albeit less than $100 a year. By leasing to the State, which is considered a BENEFICIAL USE, we retain the water right on an annual basis, we have the right to use the water in any given year by simply notifying the State of our intent. That way the right can never be considered abandoned.
Land cannot be developed in the West without water, and water is a limiting factor. I feel that those who benefit from the high dollar values land brings when it can be developed need to understand that the water that will go to sustain housing has to come from either farm users or the public's water for wildlife. My particular tack has been to trade water use for land. In other words, if urban growth needs our water, and we do have extra because of our irrigation practices, I would be willing to entertain a discussion about trading water for developed lots in the proposed subdivision. That is a 1031 exchange, and my boss would get land he can build homes on to sell, or land he can sell when it is advantageous to him from the tax standpoint. He is, after all, providing the opportunity to benefit from land development, and should be getting a piece of the action.
The issue with government condemning land to utilize a well for domestic water is that the Bureau of Reclamation has some very high domestic water prices. Cities were not in the original planning, and ag use has paid the bills to this point, so when cities go after stored water, they have to pay. Some dams now have stored water with values approaching $1000 per acre foot for domestic use. Farmers need to understand and know that water has that kind of value, and litigating the price over time in a condemnation suit will, with informed lawyers, bring lots of money in a fair trial. Better there be a bargain and deed process in a friendlier environment before hand, and either a long term water lease by the water right holder, or a trade for land, both reflecting the value of that water in a subdivision home over time.
One of the problems with water use in ag is that much goes to growing feed for livestock. Fuel prices have now exacerbated the transportation costs, and growing feed close by saves fuel. The increased need for feed is a reflection of less grazing opportunity on public lands. No public grazing has a consequence of increased water use for growing feed to replace that lost to environmental zealots' desires to rid public lands of livestock. Sometimes zero tolerance solutions create problems of the same magnitude.
When ag quits irrigating, there will be a negative wildlife impact, and critical winter ground feed will be lost. Ranches feed, whether they like to or not, a lot of wildlife in winter, on residues and regrowth on irrigated land. That will leave with the dd water, and weeds will take over the fallow land and not long after, homes will occupy that land. Streams might benefit, but wildlife in general will not.
It would appear that more impounding of spring runoff to use in summer, would put more water in streams in the low water time of year. That might be a part of the answer to increased stream flows in areas of high human occupation and water use. There are lots of arguments on either side of that solution.
I do know that ag water users would like nothing more than to use less water, use it less expensively, and with less labor and energy costs. We must maintain our food and fiber supply, and maybe the impetus should be on engineered solutions to using less to obtain the same result at less cost to the producer. We are having irrigated ag grow corn to make ethanol to have cleaner air, all at great public subsidy. That water use is being subsidized now, for clean air and oil independence goals, so maybe that has to be examined and subsidy part of the answer to less water use, and more water in the creek.
Good article.
The long time mantra of free market environmentalism is that incentives do matter - they matter for the property owner and in the end the matter for conservation. While the water is a public asset the use of the water by farmers and ranchers is a long and very well established concept which cannot be ignored my anyone. It is great that many environmental groups are finally realizing it is in the best long term interests to find ways to keep farmers and ranchers on the land rather than putting them out of business only to find the Ag land chopped up into subdivisions. Many people in agriculture do not want to see their property subdivided but work long hard hours for relatively little return for decades because they love their land and care deeply about what happens to it. Market based alternatives to selling out, such as water leases and conservation easements provide the incentive, and sometimes the economic ability, for some in agriculture to keep their land producing the food we eat rather than allow it to grow houses.
Thanks for the information.
Edwin,
Thanks for encouraging more awareness on water and environmental issues.
You should come to the Water Forum in Billings, Sept 25 and 26. If you don't know of international water rights activist Maude Barlow, you can check her speaking on you tube, blue planet project and Council of the Canadians, Maude started this group decades ago with Farley Mowat among others.
She will be our keynote speaker Friday the 26th, followed by a panel, reception and book signing. Two of her books, Blue Covenant and Blue Gold will be available. The 2 day event is at MSU Billings, free to the public and will include speakers, demonstrations, exhibits, and 4 free screenings of the new award winning documentary FLOW for the love of water. Come one come all. For more info call the Urban Institiute at MSU-B or Christine Pierce, , 406-672-3636
Hope to see you there!
Sorry it's taken so long to respond. I'm staying in the Bay Area for awhile...
Dave: Federal and state agencies (BLM, for instance) are by far the largest participants in leasing, responsible for 90% of the roughly $300 million spent between 1998 and 2005 on about a thousand transactions in ten western states. These deals entail keeping large amounts of water in big rivers to meet the requirements of the endangered species act and interstate compacts. What I focused on--smaller, nongovernmental efforts like MWT and TU's MWP--are supported in large part by money from the Bonneville Power Administration, via a project overseen by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which is called the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program. In short, salmon money. CBWTP members: Deschutes Resources Conservancy, Idaho Dept of Water Resources, Oregon Water Resources Dept, Oregon Water Trust, Walla Walla Watershed Alliance, Washington Dept of Ecology, and Washington Water Trust, along with MWT and TU's MWP. So, salmon money focused on the Pacific NW. Concerning projects in Montana that MWT and MWP take on together, or do in partnership with agencies like the Forest Service, I don't have figures. Not sure they exist in any readily accessible and comprehensive form. Hope this helps a bit...If my analysis is correct, what I've described here--dependence on salmon money, small fraction of overall leasing effort in the West, focus on tributaries--underscores the precariousness of the nongovernmental aspect of leasing. I still think MWT and MWP have much to tell us about a certain kind of approach to water use conflicts. But I'd never argue that it's the only way to go, or even the most important, in terms of long-term results.
Steve: What I've just said also bolsters your observation, of course. Everyone I talked to readily acknowledged that without the POTENTIAL of regulation/litigation looming in the background, it'd be much more difficult to negotiate voluntary agreements to keep water in streams. In Montana, of course, the anxiety among ranchers stems from at least two sources--the potential that someone will try to persuade the courts to rule that the Public Trust Doctrine preempts prior appropriation, and the potential that minimum in-stream flows could be enforced under a broad court-induced interpretation of the stream access law. As for the pragmatic question of how to get the most good done as quickly as possible, I'm deeply torn: If, as you point out, 4,000 streams are dewatered, and the trusts are doing 10, maybe 20 new deals annually, how much improvement really is being made? On the other hand, the environmental lawyers I've talked to have said that taking the issue through the courts under the Public Trust Doctrine, assuming that the case would continue moving all the way up to the Supreme Court, would require a massive investment of resources and manpower on the part of several groups, not to mention take years, many years, during which time all efforts to put water back into streams would be stalled and the state would devolve into something like a civil war.
Bear Bait: Thanks for taking the time to describe how things work on your place. Understanding how water fits into the larger scheme of things, as well as within the specific context of each watershed, was something that the folks at both MWP and MWT emphasized. It can get mighty complicated mighty fast.
Water Observer: Your comments remind me that there's a distinction that needs to be underscored, one that I believe is deeply significant: What makes the water rights issue so thorny is that there has indeed been a longstanding tradition--longstanding by western standards, at any rate--of beneficial use being viewed as a kind of property right--in other words, de facto privatization (even though that which is privately "held" usually just passes through on its course through the water cycle). Reasonable people can disagree over whether that's fair, whether it takes precedence over the Public Trust Doctrine, even whether the Public Trust Doctrine should be recognized as applicable in this instance. But there's no arguing that the presumption of a property right has in fact existed, that there's a historical precedent of privatization in the case of streams that run through farms and ranches. But that's very different from the larger enterprise of the free marketeers, which is to privatize all natural resources. An argument for a market-based compromise in a situation in which private property rights have already been established, and therefore would be difficult, if not impossible to roll back (apart from the ethical issue of whether we want to treat our ranching neighbors that way) is not an argument for the wholesale application of market-based solutions to environmental problems.
Christine: Great to hear from you, even in this oblique manner. I wish I could attend the forum. But I'll remain in the Bay Area through September, maybe October, as well. And while we're on the subject of water: One of the main reasons I'm here is to do a lot of long distance open water swimming, i.e., SF Bay, the ocean, etc. This Saturday: Round trip to Alcatraz (we start on the SF waterfront, swim out to the island, around the rear side, then back to shore). Very amusing.
Aw gee, Edwin, why bother with Alcatraz when you have the challenge of the Pit?
Comment By Monte Giese, 9-06-08I'm glad to have found this discussion. It's particularly relevant for our current situation. I'm heading a group of long-time Montana ranchers and farmers on the Teton River in northcentral Montana, a basin currently undergoing adjudication. It has been an eye-opening experience.
The Teton River is a perennial stream that averages 140cfs of water and which has suffered increasingly frequent dewaterings. As we've researched the issues over the past two years, it has become clear that the primary cause is expansion of irrigated acres as sprinklers became more prevalent in the 1980s. We also have issues related to groundwater development (principally for irrigation purposes).
We've spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars analyzing the situation with the help of hydrologists, groundwater experts and water specialists. We believe, and our research shows, that all beneficial uses of the water resource would be substantially better off over the long term if some in-stream flow remained in the river. Even water management for irrigation is improved (when considering the entire irrigation system and ecosystem, and not just a select group of water users) when some small part of the water is left in the stream. Folks on the Musselshell would confirm that this is the case. Ultimately, however, the system in Montana is broke. It requires other water rights holders, who often have limited time and money, to serve as the objectors, negotiators, mediators, etc. of their neighbors rights. There is no institutional objector who can view the adjudication as a whole, and represent other beneficial uses of the water. It is simply irrigation that is represented - an important, but limited constituency.
We strongly believe that this is not an issue that is at-odds or adversarial with the agricultural community. In fact, many farmers/ranchers have been great stewards of the land and resources, and it is a primary concern for them. We have formed a group called the Friends of the Teton River, and have a group of 15 long-time ranchers that have tentatively agreed to donate a portion of their post-adjudication rights to an in-stream flow. These are some of the most senior rights on the stream, and they are located in the downstream portion, which should provide water on a year-round basis. We have been trying to talk with as many people as possible to best understand how to correctly do this. Unfortunately, there aren't any trout in the lower portion, so we have trouble attracting any attention from the usual suspects. However, we believe the Teton, given the cooperation of the downstream agricultural community, along with the current adjudication process, could be a tremendous precedent for many of the "higher-value" streams and rivers around the country.
We're new at this, and are trying to educate ourselves. Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. We're more than willing to travel and sit-down with folks to get their ideas. I can be contacted at or at 406.217.1598 with ideas.
Monte, thank you for telling us about the work you're doing on the Teton. Sounds like you've got a great bunch of people there. I'll send your comments and contact info to Barbara Hall, of MWT, and Laura Ziemer, of MWP. Because they rely on the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program for funding, they might not be able to get directly involved in Teton River affairs (though MWP, because it's a TU initiative, probably has more flexiblity). At the very least, though, both groups are good resources. It can't but help--and help them as well as you--to talk to people who've been doing this on trout streams in western Montana. By the way, John Ferguson, who founded MWT, told me that he'd like to see a proliferation of trusts tied to specific streams. That begs the question, to be sure, of where the money comes from (if that's what's needed). But it seems that that's the direction you and your ranching friends are already headed.
Dave: The Berkeley is my Everest. But first I have to acclimate myself--first saline water, then acidic water, then metal-laden water...
If you bungee jumped the Pit, into the water and out, would you end bronzed like a pair of baby shoes?
I think there is web footed writing on the beach at Wrangell Island, in Russian, that says "run out of gas over the Pit, land anywhere but on that blue water."
Hi! A good forum, glad to join you :-)
Comment By chickenmcnuggets, 1-23-09hey ppls
Comment By chickenmcnuggets, 1-23-09i like to eat alot of chocolete hehe >=)
Comment By Christine Pierce, 5-25-09Edwin, good hearing from you this quiet, memorial day morning. Looks like your post was a few seasons back. Would be good to hear more about what all you are up to. The open water swimming sounds kind of fabulous. CP
Comment By mockbaportalru, 9-01-09брусовой дом строительство деревянных домов брусовый с мансардой <a > Отделка - вагонка. Крыша - металлический гофролист. Фундаментные блоки. Двойные оконные рамы. с доставкой и установкой под ключ! (указана стоимость дома 6х6м с прямой двухскатной крышей без веранды) </a> Ламинат, сайдинг, подоконники, пластиковые панели, вагонка пвх.
Остекление балконов -... утепление балконов и лоджий, внутренняя отделка. <a > низкая, в сравнении с остеклением балконов ПВХ, стоимость. Отделка балконов (обшивка балконов вагонкой и т. д.): создаем интерьер. </a> Обшивка вагонкой, технология обшивки вагонкой, виды вагонки
Строительство жилых домов – проекты коттеджей и отделка фасада дома на взаимовыгодных условиях. Для осуществления отделочных работ часто используются такие материалы, как вагонка, кирпич, сайдинг и другие. <a > Компания ОКНА 24: внутренняя отделка балконов и лоджий вагонкой , пластиком ... </a> Выгодно, что при отделке балкона вагонкой в цену квадратного метра материала для отделки уже входит стоимость расходных материалов. Если отделка балконов внутренняя производится пластиковой вагонкой или панелями, то силикон тоже включён в стоимость .
Кран шаровой, фланцевый, 285503, Ду15, Ру40, Т=200С, "Naval"Финляндия. <a > Шаровые краны Arco. Запорная арматура. Водозапорная арматура. Краны шаровые. </a> ...жидкостей и газов, применяется во многих областях производства, а также в быту. Шаровый кран является одним из простейших типов запорной арматуры. стальные шаровые краны ; краны шаровые для воды; фланцевые шаровые краны ; Компания «ЗИП-ФЛЕКС...
11с17бк Кран пробковый трехходовой сальниковый с паровым обогревом фланцевый Ру-10. 11с33п1 Кран с шаром из нержавеющей стали фланцевый Ру-16. 11с67п Кран шаровой проходной фланцевый Ру-16. <a > ... 20, конвекторы сантехпром; отводы, переходы и фланцы стальные.. </a> Шаровые краны НЕМЕН, для газа стальные под сварку полнопроходные. 1.6.2.3. Шаровые краны НЕМЕН, для газа стальные фланцевые тип АН. 1.7.3. Краны шаровые KLINGER, Ballostar фланцевый Ру-25 полнопроходной с мех./приводом AUMA.
Кран шаровой фланцевый стальной 11с69п (11с79п) ЕМКА. Предназначен для установки на трубопровод в качестве запорного устройства, полностью перекрывающего поток рабочей среды. <a > Цельносварные шаровые краны из нержавейки </a> Главная » Продукция » Цельносварные шаровые краны » Цельносварной шаровой кран 11с67п-Ц фланцевый.
Санкт-Петербург - Все Для Промышленности - стр. 10 <a > Кран шаровой фланцевый и резьбовой NAVAL стальной НАВАЛ. </a> Шаровой кран цельносварной 11с67п-Ц фланцевый КШЦ Теплообменники...
Декоративные экраны на батареи радиатора, батареи отопления, решетки. <a > ЗАЧЕМ НУЖНЫ ЭКРАНЫ ДЛЯ БАТАРЕЙ ОТОПЛЕНИЯ? Декоративный экран радиатора батарей отопления, представляет собой конструкцию... Декоративные экраны изготавливаются из экологически чистых материалов и подходят для любых видов отопительных приборов. </a> Экраны для батарей металлические, навесные
ЭКОРЕМ - лестницы деревянные, балясины, элементы лестниц, экраны для. <a > ...который крепится на батарею, а только потом на короб крепится экран для радиатора отопления. крепление «на проем». .для установки декоративных экранов батарей не обязательно, Вы и сами можете справиться с этой простой работой. </a> Экраны на батареи ( экраны для радиаторов) отопления. Типы экранов для.
Экраны для батарей отопления - Мебельная фабрика "Мастер" <a > Экраны для батарей отопления , изготовленные специалистами мебельной фабрики «Мастер», это изделия высокого качества. Мы работаем только с проверенными поставщиками древесины, прошедшими жесткий отбор. </a> Системы отопления - радиаторы отопления , полотенцесушители, батареи ...
медсправка для гаи новые черемушки <a > Медкнижка ( новая и продление) Медсправки и Больничные листы Мед справки для ГАИ (ГИБДД) гМосква Подробнее. 07:09. посещения бассейна с доставкои на дом по всеи Москве мновые черемушки. </a> Водительская медсправка в юао
балашиха военный гарнизонный суд - консультация <a > балашиха военный гарнизонный суд,нотариусы москвы,белая и серая зарплата,письмо о переуступке прав,учреждение,положение о персонале,акт приемки по качеству,мужской привлекательности,образец договора аренды, медсправка водителя образец. </a> Школа танцев Diamonds - современные танцы, клубные танцы - R'n'B, латина.
Универсальное помещение под бизнес - Предложения недвижимости в ... <a > Мед справки для Гаи Балашиха . Свадебные платья прически и макияж. Недорогие свадебные прически и макияж для невесты . </a> FFClub :) > В/у РФ больше не действительны за границей
Право руля! :: Взаимопомощь автовладельцев :: Здравствуйте,Виктор ... <a > Возникла проблема при замене В.У.(окончание срока действия 18.12.08 г.)в МРЭО г. Балашиха . Предоставил все необходимые документы. 1. Мед . справка была получена в г.Москва ,а не в поликлиниках на территории Балашихинского р-она на ,что. </a> Чертеж 3D Электродвигатель АИР100S2(4,0-3000) Электрооборудование В ...
Расширительные баки :: Системы отопления :: Каталог Оборудования :: Группа. <a > Настенные двухконтурные газовые котлы с принудительной тягой (TURBO) - DAEWOO (Южная Корея ) Качественный продукт по... .в соответствие с изменениями модуляции горелки, давлением газа, состояние дымохода, тяги и электрического напряжения в сети. </a> Ндфл3 Пример Заполнения По Продаже Авто - CEYLONCLUB
Похожее. без описаний с описаниями. продам Газовый котел Daewoo, газовый котёл, котел газовый, газовый котел газ. Предлагаем Вам газовые котлы ЭЛИТНОГО КЛАССА: DAEWOO ( Корея ), предназначены для... <a > ГАЗОВЫЙ КОТЕЛ DAEWOO – МАКСИМУМ ЭКОНОМИИ, НАДЕЖНОС - Продажа б.у., продам ... </a> 29 Февраля 11:44. ГАЗОВЫЙ КОТЕЛ DAEWOO – МАКСИМУМ ЭКОНОМИИ, НАДЕЖНОС. Сравнить цены, характеристики, почитать отзывы о моделях в разделе... DAEWOO ( Корея ), предназначены для автономного отопления и водоснабжения квартир, домов и т. д., мощностью
Итальянская одежда CENTERGROSS <a > ИТАЛЬЯНСКОЙ. МОДНОЙ ОДЕЖДЫ. еженедельное. обновление. ассортимента. оптовая. продажа. со склада. в Москве. </a> Магазин одежды ModaMia: модная молодежная одежда, итальянская одежда.
Мы являемся одним из крупнейших импортеров качественной европейской одежды и обуви в Россию, организуя прямые поставки из стран Европы на наш оптовый склад в Москве. <a > Модная женская одежда оптом, мужская одежда оптом, молодежная одежда оптом. </a> Оптовые склады женской одежды.
Оптовая продажа женских коллекций Итальянской одежды, сезон 2009, со склада в Москве. <a > Женская одежда </a> Предлагаем итальянскую одежду с нескольких десятков фабрик и оптовых складов под Флоренцией. Охватываем практически весь спектр итальянской одежды - от самых известных брендов до готовой одежды и ценовой диапазон от 3 до 500 евро.
City Fashion <a > Оптово -розничный склад итальянской одежды . </a> Женская одежда оптом - производство женской одежды
Девочки, подскажите приличное общежитие семейного типа форум Woman.ru <a > В избранное Добавить в блог. </a> Трудовая Коряжма, 15/01/04 (4) ... возможности построить семейное.
Женщина снимет комнату в общежитии семейного типа Женщина 36 лет, россиянка снимет комнату в общежитии СЕМЕЙНОГО ТИПА 89199668867, 89096952180. « Пред. След. » Вернуться. Общежития для рабочих Объявления Частные обьявления Сниму комнату в семейном. <a > Предлагаем комнаты в общежитии семейного типа м Курская. </a> Все комнаты общежития оборудованы по самым современным международным стандартам. Каждая комната оснащена мини-кухней и отдельным с/у. Также у нас комнаты различных категорий комфортности - от...
общежитие семейного типа. Комментарии : LiveInternet - Российский Сервис... <a > Воскресенье, 14 Декабря 2008 г. 01:10 (ссылка) + в цитатник или сообщество +поставить ссылку. </a> Новости Украины proUA.com -... предлагают переселить нардепов в общежития
Рольф Хундай. отделка пример сметы. <a > Российский Клуб Любителей Ситроен > Беспредел в Пежо Ситроен РУС </a> Что интересно, красят ребята тамошние на стороне в каком-то сервисе в полукилометре от них, так же в Рольф Хундай, при нас звонил им.
Продам Хундай ROLF. Купить Продам Хундай ROLF <a > Дополнительная информация о Продам Хундай ROLF. Хундай ROLF оснащается, скорей всего, наиболее совершенными на данное время двигателями рабочего объёма, которые уже успели отвоевать наиболее почетное положение, которое демонстрирует их совершенство. </a> РОЛЬФ -ВОСТОК - каталог предприятий - РОЛЬФ! РОЛЬФ -ЮГ, РОЛЬФ -ЦЕНТР, КАРНЕТ.
Рольф -Восток: (495) 785-80-00. Рольф -Юг: (495) 755-55-05. Рольф -Химки: (495) 788-48-88. .i30.ru Официальный форум клуба Hyundai i30 / Хендай и30 хундай i30, hyndai i30, hunday i30, hundai i30, huyndai i30, Hyundai i30 Авто,Hyundai i30,Kia Ceed... <a > Hyundai Terracan - Продажа, Цены, Отзывы, Фото: 124 объявления </a> Хундай Terracan. Hyundai Terracan 2005 г. г.Москва. Куплен 28.03.2005 новым в " Рольф "(Москва).Двигатель по лицензии Mitsubishi + рама + полный привод + задний мост LSD(межколесный деференциал) + АКПП типтроник.Все механизмы, и салон в идеале...
Кредит Без Справки О Доходах - Доход <a > При оформлении кредита oбвиняeмыe предоставляли в Сбeрбaнк несоответствующие действит%
Всем Здравствуйте.
Интересует меня один вопрос.
В интернет бывают всякие сайта в реальном времени советы адвокатов, вот интересно мне пользовались ли Вы такими советами и каков результат от них.
Заранее спасибо.
additioca
Периодически воспользовалась сиим веб-сайтом <a >этапы развития теории прав человека</a> , пару раз сильно подсказали по вопросу <a >долевое участие в строительстве квартир в волгограде</a> .
ой не там запостила.