Federal Court rules state “area of origin” laws do not require Bureau of Reclamation to preferentially deliver water to the Sacramento Valley
Posted by: Maven on January 11, 2012 at 7:33 amFrom the KMTG Natural Resources Blog:
“KMTG attorney Hanspeter Walter recently published an article in the California Water Law and Policy Reporter discussing a 2011 federal court decision, Tehama Colusa Canal Authority v. U.S. Department of the Interior, which interpreted California’s “Area of Origin” laws. … “
For the link to the article, click here.
Friday’s top of the scroll: A battle over water rights: National Ski Areas Association to sue U.S. Forest Service over water rights issue
Posted by: Maven on December 30, 2011 at 8:13 amFrom ESPN:
“Ski resorts are feuding with their Forest Service landlord over a water rights clause in updated ski area permitting regulations that keeps water rights tied to the land, not the resort operator.
After intense lobbying — which included stern letters from a host of congressman and senators — last week the Forest Service rebuffed the calls for a moratorium and issued the new rule as an 18-month moratorium. The resort industry, led by the 121-resort National Ski Areas Association, answered with a promise to sue the agency, which hosts nearly 90 percent of all U.S. ski areas.
“This has to do with water rights in general and how water rights are treated,” said Michael Berry, president of the NSAA. “We believe they have crossed the rubicon and this has the potential to be very, very impactful. We have no guarantee that they will continue to use the water for purposes of ski area business.” … “
Continue reading from ESPN by clicking here.
RELATED:
- Where’s the Sierra snow?, from the San Diego Union Tribune
- Little snow at Sierra ski resorts, from the Contra Costa Times
Federal Claims Court holds that only the right to the beneficial use of water constitutes a compensable water right under California law
Posted by: Maven on December 14, 2011 at 8:51 amFrom Somach Simmons & Dunn, this Environmental Law & Policy Alert:
“In Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States (December 5, 2011), No. 05168L Court of Federal Claims, ___ Fed.Cl. ___, the Court of Federal Claims held that the only compensable water right that can be obtained under California law is a right to beneficial use. Also, the court held that a plaintiff’s claim will not accrue until the government’s action interferes with a plaintiff’s beneficial use of water. The Federal Claims Court’s decision thereby provides guidance in assessing whether and when a water right taking has occurred.
Background
Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas MWD) holds a water right license that allows it to divert up to 107,800 acre-feet of water per year from the Ventura River and put up to 28,500 acre-feet of water per year to beneficial use. Since 1959, Casitas MWD has also been required to allow the first 20 cfs of river flow to pass its diversion before it can divert water into a 4.5-mile canal that transports water to Lake Casitas reservoir, where Casitas MWD stores water for delivery to Casitas MWD customers. In 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the west coast steelhead as an endangered species, noting that the habitat loss was largely attributable to dams and dewatering. As a consequence of the listing, Casitas MWD faced possible civil and criminal liability if its water diversions were determined to harm steelhead trout. … “
Click here for an extensive analysis on this decision from Somach Simmons & Dunn.
MORE: Water Wired has an opinion by Attorney Jesse J. Richardson, Jr., advisor to the Water Systems Council and an Associate Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech.
Water rights market keep forward motion
Posted by: Maven on December 13, 2011 at 7:42 amFrom Living in Actively Moving Water, a blog about water rights and water markets, this article from the Electronic Business Journal (hat tip to the Water Sisweb):
“When EBJ last reported on water rights markets in the latterpart of 2008, the sense among industry analysts and market players was that the U.S. market for water rights trading was not living up to expectations. Perhaps for political reasons, reliance on markets to distribute access to an increasingly over-allocated resource, especially in the American West, simply wasn’t catching onto the extent expected or desired, even as innovative approaches to resource allocation were sorely needed.
That was about the time the financial crisis struck, taking the U.S. and much of the global economy down with it. The water rights market was certainly affected, as the real estate and land development markets were at the center of the debacle (real estate values being historically linked to water rights values). … “
Continue reading this article by clicking here.
Liberty Blog: Water rights and takings law
Posted by: Maven on December 9, 2011 at 8:18 amFrom Damien Schiff at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog:
“Today I’m speaking at a CLE conference here in Sacramento on water rights. Here’s a little excerpt from my remarks.
But in the case of water rights, the right to exclude is not paramount; rather, what is paramount is the right of use. Water rights differ from most other property rights precisely in that they are usufructuary. Thus, when the government says that one cannot use water to which one is otherwise entitled, the impact of that regulation on one’s property interest is as severe as the physical occupation of real property; for in both instances, the paramount “stick” in the relevant bundle has been taken. … “
Continue reading from the Liberty Blog by clicking here.
Restore the Delta’s blog: Wandering in the house of mirrors with the California Water Commission
Posted by: Maven on October 22, 2011 at 6:21 amFrom Restore the Delta’s blog:
“Does the State Water Project’s largest contractor have enough customers actually willing to pay for the conveyance being contemplated? With that question in mind, let us turn to our report on the California Water Commission meeting on Wednesday afternoon. At the Water Commission, DWR is urging Commissioners to act under the assumption that new conveyance will be approved and funded.
The meeting began with supervising land agent Alan Davis apologizing to Delta landowners for the recent unprofessional behavior of agents trying to serve them with court papers. … “
Continue reading from Restore the Delta’s blog by clicking here.
On the Public Record blog: Area of origin rights to future water.
Posted by: Maven on October 17, 2011 at 6:12 amFrom the On the Public Record blog:
“Both the editorials from the source areas assert their right to enough water for future growth.
Calaveras and Tuolumne editorial:
Lopez said the draft could also affect future water rights and does not recognize communities’ rights as “areas of origin” to eventually use available water for future development. Lopez said that would slow economic development in Calaveras County… .
Folsom and Roseville editorial:…the deal was that Northern California water suppliers would always be able to use our local water to meet local demands. … The Delta plan proposes to make it more difficult for us to use water supplies … needed to meet future water demands.
Different Sac Valley folks are testing the strength of their Area of Origin rights in law, and I have no idea how those court cases will turn out. But, in practice, I can’t imagine that the foothill and Sac Valley folks are going to get wide sympathy for “and whatever water we ‘need’ to grow.” … “
Continue reading from On the Public Record by clicking here.
California’s water rights dispute rages on
Posted by: Maven on September 29, 2011 at 7:42 amFrom the Western Farm Press:
“This case involved a dispute over water rights to California’s two largest rivers. An association of 16 water contracting agencies from north of the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta sought to establish superior water rights under water service contracts that would limit and exclude the export of water south of the Delta until its members received 100 percent of their contractually-allocated water supply. The plaintiff, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA) filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and it’s Bureau of Reclamation, among others, asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to provide injunctive and declaratory relief.
The water system involved in this dispute – the Central Valley Project (CVP) – is a federally-funded project established to pump water from the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers into canals that carry it to the southern San Joaquin River Valley. In the 1930’s, California recognized the need to set-up a canal system to carry water into important farming regions, but couldn’t afford to fund the entire project. … “
Continue reading from the Western Farm Press by clicking here.
Plumas County: Water rights holders continue weighing options
Posted by: Maven on September 28, 2011 at 8:21 amFrom the Plumas County News:
“Indian Creek water rights holders bombarded state water officials with questions when they came to Taylorsville Tuesday, Sept. 20.
Many knew it was too late to prevent hundreds and thousands of dollars in charges on their tax bills come December, so the verification of that by the state and the county came as no surprise.
What did create some flack was the way state officials answered their questions. … “
Continue reading from the Plumas County News by clicking here.
California Water Wars blog: Homeward bound: The areas of origin
Posted by: Maven on September 20, 2011 at 7:47 amFrom the California Water Wars (a new blog):
“Protecting the “areas of origin” is the mantra of the North — and should be. It is at the core of California’s water dispute. It is the essential reason northern Californians overwhelming rejected the Peripheral Canal nearly 30 years ago. It is the final turf proclamation of every town and irrigation district north of Sacramento. It is nearly as important as the far more publicized political and policy fight over the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Areas of origin is as much a pocketbook issue as an emotional issue, especially for farmers. If you live in the north, where the water is, you want first-come, first-serve rights before any of that water flows to the south. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. … “
Continue reading from the California Water Wars by clicking here.
Thursday’s top of the scroll: Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority plans to appeal Area-of-Origin ruling
Posted by: Maven on September 15, 2011 at 8:53 amFrom ACWA’s Water News:
“A northern California water district announced today it plans to appeal the decision of a federal district court in an area-of-origin water rights case.
In August, Judge Oliver Wanger ruled in a suit filed by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority that Central Valley Project contractors in the Sacramento Valley are not entitled to a priority of water allocations in dry years over exports to water contractors located south of the Delta. … “
Continue reading from ACWA’s Water News by clicking here.
Northern California counties denied priority water rights
Posted by: Maven on August 10, 2011 at 8:33 amFrom the Courthouse News Service:
“In a longstanding dispute over the rights to water from California’s two largest rivers, a federal judge denied a Sacramento-area water authority’s claim that its residents deserve the first right to water from their own watersheds, before it’s pumped 500 miles south through federally funded canals to the desert farmlands of southern San Joaquin Valley.
District Judge Oliver Wanger found that neither state nor federal law supported the water rights claims from Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, which delivers water to people in four coastal counties in northern California. Wanger denied the Canal Authority’s claims, finding that the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation have the responsibility of allocating water “for the widest public benefit.” … “
Continue reading from the Courthouse News Service by clicking here.
Monday’s top of the scroll: Analysis: Water rights trade to help quench world thirst
Posted by: Maven on August 8, 2011 at 7:41 amMaven is officially baaaack! So pleased to be here, blogging from the Aquafornia headquarters in Southern California, where the air is blissfully dry and the bugs are few! A BIG thank you to Susan Lauer at the Water Education Foundation for keeping things going for y’all while I was gone. And now, from Reuters News:
“Markets in water rights are likely to evolve as a rising population leads to shortages and climate change causes drought and famine.
But they will be based on regional and ethical trading practices and will differ from the bulk of commodity trade.
Detractors argue trading water is unethical or even a breach of human rights, but already water rights are bought and sold in arid areas of the globe from Oman to Australia.
“We at Blackhawk strongly believe that water is in fact turning into the new gold for this decade and beyond,” said Ziad Abdelnour, president and chief executive of U.S.-based private equity firm Blackhawk Partners. … “
Continue reading from Reuters News by clicking here.
RELATED: Factbox: Water trading schemes around the world, from Reuters News
District Court Rejects Claims to Area of Origin Priority by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
Posted by: Susan Lauer on August 5, 2011 at 8:30 amFrom Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Water users in the Sacramento Valley have no preferential right to delivery of Central Valley Project water under the state’s so-called “area of origin” laws, according to the U.S. District Court in Fresno. The “area of origin” laws allow water users within an area where water originates to apply for new diversions, and to obtain priority for such diversions ahead of already existing diversions for export uses by the CVP and the State Water Project.
Continue reading from Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard by clicking here.
Sacramento Valley farmers lose area-of-origin lawsuit
Posted by: Susan Lauer on August 2, 2011 at 8:21 amFrom the Chico Enterprise-Record
A case for area-of-origin water rights in the Sacramento Valley was shot down Friday by a federal court judge.
The Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, with landowners in Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo counties, made the case that its water users should have priority in dry years over federal water contractors south of the Delta.
In 10 of the past 33 years, Tehama-Colusa has received less than its full water contract, causing shortages on the 150,000 acres of land it services, water managers said.
Continue reading from the Chico Enterprise-Record by clicking here.
Water rights permit couple to keep aquatic features, greenery
Posted by: Susan Lauer on August 2, 2011 at 8:08 amFrom the Las Vegas Review-Journal
Count Guido Roberto Deiro and his wife, Joan, call their home Villa Kismet….The property draws a lot of attention from visitors to the nearby community orchard. Some even knock on their door to ask how the Deiros pull it off in this desert dwelling.
“I tell them, ‘I own my own water rights,’ ” Count Deiro said.
Continue reading from the Las Vegas Review-Journal
Report: Alive but irrelevant: The prior appropriation doctrine in today’s western water law
Posted by: Maven on June 12, 2011 at 7:46 amFrom the Social Science Research Network (hat tip to the Water Sisweb!):
“The Prior Appropriation Doctrine has long been the foundation of laws governing water allocation and use in the American West, but it has been under pressure from forces both external and internal to the western states. Twenty years ago, Prior Appropriation was pronounced dead in a provocative essay by Charles Wilkinson. Other scholars argued that it was still alive, but it now appears to have lost its force as the controlling doctrine of western water law. This article analyzes three recent cases upholding state laws that undermine a fundamental Prior Appropriation principle, then considers the water policy implications of the western states’ departure from Prior Appropriation. “
To read the report, click here to go to the webpage and click on the “One-Click Download” link located on the blue bar above the title.
Thursday’s top of the scroll: Clash over water rights heads to Fresno court
Posted by: Maven on June 2, 2011 at 8:26 amFrom the Fresno Bee:
“A group of Sacramento Valley water districts is going to court today in Fresno, claiming they should get their entire federal water allotment before one drop heads to the San Joaquin Valley.
It’s a bold claim that, if successful, could upend California’s intricately woven water world – and starve the west side of water in drought years.
In a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority – which is composed of 17 water contractors between Yolo and Tehama counties – relies on a state law that gives preferential water rights to the area where a river originates. … “
Continue reading from the Fresno Bee by clicking here.
United States Supreme Court holds that under Montana and Wyoming state law, the No Injury Rule does not apply to reduced return flows caused by installation of more efficient irrigation systems
Posted by: Maven on May 26, 2011 at 8:52 amFrom Somach Simmons & Dunn, an Environmental Law & Policy Alert on a case with possible implications for California:
“On May 2, 2011, the United States Supreme Court held that upstream appropriators’ use of more efficient irrigation systems did not breach a river compact between Montana and Wyoming because the compact incorporated the doctrine of appropriation, which allows upstream appropriators to increase their net water consumption by improving the efficiency of their irrigation systems, even to the detriment of downstream appropriators in the form of decreased return flows. Montana v. Wyoming, No. 137, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3369, *1 (U.S., 2011) (Montana).
The Court concluded that the efficiency improvements were within the scope of the right of appropriation because they did not result in a change in the acreage irrigated or the amount of water diverted, and thus did not injure downstream appropriators. … “
Continue reading from Somach Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District releases plan for revenue-generating water use opportunities; plan includes pursuing industrial customers, selling water to other areas, watershed restoration work
Posted by: Maven on May 5, 2011 at 8:14 amFrom the Eureka Times-Standard:
“In response to higher water rates and the need to maintain water rights, the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District recently released a draft plan of action to pursue possible revenue-generating uses for its abundance of water.
The plan, created after a year of extensive outreach to community groups and agencies, presents three favorable ventures, pared down from a list of 10. It directs staff to look at actively pursuing companies that use industrial amounts of water, selling water to another municipality, or using the water in the Mad River watershed for environmental restoration. … “
Continue reading from the Eureka Times-Standard by clicking here.
Australia: Investors dip their toes in water rights
Posted by: Maven on April 15, 2011 at 8:34 amFrom the Australian:
“Investors who subscribe to the “straw hats in winter” theory could do worse than wade into water rights, given the abundance of the vital commodity on the eastern seaboard.
With flood waters coursing down the Murray-Darling system, the price of water — which includes permanent rights and annual allocations — has plunged since the height of the drought.
Since water rights were decoupled from land ownership between the early 1990s and 2000s, anyone has been able to buy entitlements through a network of specialist brokers.
But water trading is not something that retail investors should blithely rush into, given the complexity of the various state-based water rights regimes. … “
Continue reading from The Australian by clicking here.
Private Water Law Blog: California mutual water company basics
Posted by: Maven on April 13, 2011 at 8:13 amFrom the Private Water Law blog:
“I have noticed that a number of readers find their way to my blog seeking information related to California mutual water companies. In an effort to respond to that apparent demand, this post is devoted to some of the basics of those organizations. There are many nuances and other laws I will not mention in this post; for those you’ll have to contact me, since there are many considerations relevant to mutual water company operations and disputes.
In California, there is no specific statute under which mutual water companies are formed or governed; mutuals are created pursuant to the various general corporation statutes. Mutuals are most commonly formed as general corporations (Corp. Code §§ 100 et seq.) or as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations (Corp. Code §§ 7110 et seq.), although other structures are sometimes used for tax or other reasons. … “
Continue reading from the Private Water Law Blog by clicking here.
Court denies rehearing; Water districts to be compensated; The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation delivered less water to the districts than the government promised to provide
Posted by: Maven on March 29, 2011 at 8:31 amFrom Environmental Protection:
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a ruling that puts an end to litigation between the Stockton East Water District, Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, and the California Water Service Company. The litigation centered on whether the water districts had a contractual right to receive water from the New Melones Reservoir reclamation project.
The court rejected the government’s attempt to obtain a rehearing. In denying the petition, the court held that “there is no denying that the quantities of water promised were not delivered, and that therefore a breach occurred. This is beyond dispute — the evidence is conclusive.” The case is now remanded to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for a determination of monetary damages. … “
Continue reading from Environmental Protection by clicking here.
MORE COVERAGE: The Stockton Record covers the story here, but it is behind the paywall, so you will have to login, or sign up for the free registration.
Press release: Major victory for California water districts as Federal Circuit denies government petition for rehearing
Posted by: Maven on March 25, 2011 at 8:52 amFrom the Digital Journal, this press release from Marzullo Law LLC:
“The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a ruling that puts an end to litigation between the Stockton East Water District, Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, and the California Water Service Company. The litigation centered on whether the water districts had a contractual right to receive water from the New Melones Reservoir reclamation project. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a last-ditch attempt by the government to obtain a rehearing. In denying the petition, the Court held that “there is no denying that the quantities of water promised were not delivered, and that therefore a breach occurred. This is beyond dispute—the evidence is conclusive.” The case is now remanded to the United States Court of Federal Claims for a determination of monetary damages “which to the extent feasible should be expedited.”
“The federal government entered into firm commitments with these water districts to get a permit from the state to fill the New Melones Reservoir,” explained Nancie G. Marzulla, counsel for the water districts. “We are pleased to go on to the damages phase in this case,” she said. … “
Continue reading from the Digital Journal by clicking here.
Wednesday’s top of the scroll: San Joaquin County sues over access to American River
Posted by: Maven on February 23, 2011 at 8:57 amFrom the Stockton Record:
“San Joaquin County’s half-century effort to drink from the American River is headed to court.
The county has filed a lawsuit against the State Water Resources Control Board, which last year rejected San Joaquin’s longstanding request to take water from that stream to the north.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 16, says the county has “diligently” pursued the water, and says the state’s decision to throw out the county’s application is an “abuse of discretion.” … “
Continue reading from the Stockton Record by clicking here. Note: this article is behind the paywall at the Stockton Record. Login or registration required to read it. A free registration will give you 10 article reads per month.
Calistoga: Reynolds vows to appeal water suit ruling
Posted by: Maven on February 10, 2011 at 8:16 amFrom the Weekly Calistogan:
“The plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city of Calistoga centered on conservation of the Upper Napa River watershed plans to continue the fight for compensation for an alleged overdraft of the Kimball reservoir since the early 1950s.
A Napa judge ruled against Grant Reynolds and for the city on Jan. 27.
“We accept the court’s ruling, but respectfully disagree with his decisions,” plaintiff Grant Reynolds said early this week. “We will file a appeal in the California 2nd District Court of Appeals as soon as the public trust case is settled in October.” … “
Continue reading from the Weekly Calistogan by clicking here.
RELATED: City Manager Spitler shares his view of Reynolds water suit, from the Weekly Calistogan
Legal Analysis: Supreme Court issues decision in water right fee case
Posted by: Maven on February 8, 2011 at 8:12 amFrom Somach, Simmons & Dunn:
“On January 31, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the water right fee case. There, the Court upheld, as constitutional, the statutes adopted by the Legislature in 2003 imposing new water right fees, but remanded the case back to the superior court for a determination of whether the fees, as applied through the State Water Resources Control Board’s (“SWRCB”) regulations, meet the standard for valid regulatory fees. In its decision, the Court also held that the statutes authorizing a “pass-through” of fees imposed on the water held by the United States did not violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. On remand, the superior court will need to determine whether it was appropriate for the SWRCB, through its implementing regulations, to pass through the entire fee imposed on the water rights held by the United States, or whether only a portion of the fee is appropriate to pass through. … “
Continue reading from Somach, Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
MORE COVERAGE: State Supereme Court rules in water rights fee case, from ACWA’s Water News
Tuesday’s top of the scroll: Davis, Woodland seek right to divert Sacramento River water
Posted by: Maven on January 18, 2011 at 8:25 amFrom the Sacramento Bee:
“A plan to provide better drinking water for Davis and Woodland could have implications well beyond the two Yolo County cities. It could also set a precedent for all future diversions from the Sacramento River.
The two cities want the state to grant them a new right to divert 45,000 acre-feet annually from the river, to replace poor-quality wells.
The cities have no water rights of their own in the river now, and the request comes at a crucial time: Recent studies suggest existing water rights have already left the Sacramento River massively over-allocated, contributing to ecological problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. … “
Continue reading from the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Is it a water-rights fee or a backdoor tax? Calif.’s high court will decide
Posted by: Maven on December 3, 2010 at 8:39 amFrom the New York Times:
“The California Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next week on a case that could undermine the state’s ability to collect fees for water rights.
The state’s highest court has scheduled the hearing for Tuesday, more than three years after briefs were filed in a legal fight that pits the powerful California Farm Bureau Federation against the California State Water Resources Control Board.
The suit, first filed by the farming group in 2003, alleges the board violated the U.S. Constitution and the state-passed Proposition 13 when it implemented a regulatory program that charges water-rights holders annual permit fees. … “
Continue reading from the New York Times by clicking here.
On the Public Record blog: Have we learned nothing?
Posted by: Maven on November 14, 2010 at 8:07 amThe On the Public Record blog responds to the New York Times article on more Dudley Ridge water rights being sold:
“Didn’t we spend all last year discussing this?
The farmers pay a maximum of $500 per acre-foot of water from the state water project, KFSN-TV reported. But the Tejon Ranch is paying the farmers $5,850 an acre-foot, meaning that the sellers will net $11.7 million.
Tejon Ranch is proposing to buy the water-right; it would pay approximately $6k for every acre-foot in the water right and all their future yields. This is not a profit of ten times what the farmers would pay for any one year’s water.
I’m pretty disappointed that this keeps getting perpetuated. … “
Continue reading from the On the Public Record blog by clicking here.
Legal Analysis: Water right fees, Proposition 26, and the Delta . . .
Posted by: Maven on November 13, 2010 at 6:34 amFrom the Somach Simmons & Dunn:
“In 2003, several organizations and hundreds of individual water right holders challenged new charges on water rights enacted by the Legislature under the guise of “regulatory fees.” These organizations and water right holders argued, in part, that the charges violated Proposition 13’s prohibition on new and increased taxes absent a two-thirds vote and that the charges, also imposed on water rights held by the United States, violated federal law. While the Third District Court of Appeal held that the underlying statutes did not violate Proposition 13, the Court invalidated the State Water Resources Control Board’s regulations implementing the statutes, finding the regulations resulted in an unlawful tax. The case is currently pending at the California Supreme Court, and oral argument is scheduled to be heard in Los Angeles on December 7, 2010.
The Appellate Court held that the statutes in question created valid “regulatory fees.” Regulatory fees are a relatively new type of charge, finding favor with the California Legislature following the passage of Proposition 13. … “
Continue reading from Somach Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
Farmers’ water deals stir debate
Posted by: Maven on November 13, 2010 at 6:32 amFrom the New York Times Green blog:
“Two farmers in California’s San Joaquin Valley are proposing to do with their water what farmers around the country have done for decades: sell it to developers.
The farmers pay a maximum of $500 per acre-foot of water from the state water project, KFSN-TV reported. But the Tejon Ranch is paying the farmers $5,850 an acre-foot, meaning that the sellers will net $11.7 million. (An acre-foot is generally considered the amount of water two average households use annually.)
The fields, within the Dudley Ridge Water district, a small 30,000-acre area in southern Kings County, northeast of Los Angeles, produce fruit and nut trees — pomegranates, pistachios and the like. … “
Continue reading from the New York Times by clicking here.
Wedensday’s top of the scroll: Kings farmers set to sell $11.7M in water rights
Posted by: Maven on November 10, 2010 at 8:43 amFrom the Hanford Sentinel:
“In the threatened world of Westside agriculture, two more farmers have decided to sell water rights to urban development interests in Southern California.
The deal would send 1,998 acre-feet of water from two Kings County growers to Tejon Ranch Co. for $5,850 per acre-foot, or $11.7 million. The water would likely be used for urban development Tejon Ranch Co. has planned along Interstate 5 south of Bakersfield.
An acre-foot of water is the amount of water that would cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot. The average family uses about an acre-foot of water per year.
Both growers are in the Dudley Ridge Water District, located in remote western Kings County. The district’s board of directors will consider the proposed sale at their next meeting on Dec. 8 at the office of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group in Fresno, said Rick Besecker, district treasurer. … “
Continue reading from the Hanford Sentinel by clicking here.
Pacific Legal Foundation commentary: Throughout the West, a flood of attacks on water rights
Posted by: Maven on November 9, 2010 at 8:31 amFrom the Lahontan Valley News, this commentary by Brandon Middleton and Damian Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation:
““Water, water, everywhere …,” begins a famous line by Coleridge.
Today, in the American West, assaults on water rights can be seen practically everywhere.
Government regulators and environmental activists lead the attacks, and farmers and ranchers are the immediate targets. But the negative impact threatens to ripple throughout the economy.
After all, economic development in the West has always depended on respect for water rights. Water is scarce in much of the region, so certainty in water rights is a vital incentive to use this precious commodity productively, for the greatest good. … “
Continue reading this commentary from the Lahontan Valley News by clicking here.
Pacific Legal Foundation: Throughout the west, a flood of attacks on water rights
Posted by: Maven on October 21, 2010 at 9:16 amFrom the Pacific Legal Foundation, posted at YouTube:
Throughout the West, water rights are under attack—by government regulators and environmental activists. PLF is fighting back, defending traditional water rights in litigation throughout the region.
Legal fights over water permits continue
Posted by: Maven on September 17, 2010 at 8:32 amFrom the Capital Press:
“A San Francisco judge is considering whether to move a lawsuit challenging state water diversion permit requirements out of politically charged Siskiyou County in far Northern California.
The state Department of Fish and Game requested a change of venue for the suit filed by the California Farm Bureau Federation, which claimed the state is violating ranchers’ property and water rights.
At a hearing Sept. 9, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith heard arguments and said he would be issuing a written decision soon, according to Jack Rice, the CFBF’s environmental counsel. … “
Continue reading from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Pacific Legal Foundation: More water shortages from bureaucratic red tape?
Posted by: Maven on August 27, 2010 at 7:35 amFrom the Pacific Legal Foundation, posted at YouTube:
“If you believe that water rights are important and that government shouldn’t undercut them—and that we don’t need more meddlesome bureaucratic restrictions on water availability—then you’ll be interested to hear PLF’s Brandon Middleton describe the issues in California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Department of Fish and Game.”
Tribal water rights supported before Congress
Posted by: Maven on August 18, 2010 at 9:00 amFrom Indian Country Today:
“A pair of tribal water rights settlements received renewed attention from Congress just before its break for summer recess.
“They are not the most exciting issues around. … but they are very important in the life of tribal governments,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, at a July 22 hearing on two bills, S.2956, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act; and S.3290, the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010.
Testifying in support of the legislation that impacts his tribe, Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro said the bill would settle longstanding tribal claims to waters of the Santa Margarita River Watershed. … “
Continue reading from Indian Country Today by clicking here.
Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood blog: 10 water laws of the West
Posted by: Maven on August 18, 2010 at 8:59 amFrom Hugh Holub, reprinted by permission at Lloyd Carter’s Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood blog:
“[Note: I am a water attorney. Years ago I was asked to give a speech summarzing Western water law to a group of non-lawyers. This was the result....]
Introduction: It does not take a law degree to understand water law and policy in the western United States. Ten basic legal and historical principles govern the rights to and uses of water in the West. By understanding these ten Water Laws of the West anyone can then understand the current issues of water and its relationship to the future of the West.
I. The Law of Gravity: The First Water Law of the West is the Law of Gravity. Water runs down hill. The initial uses of water in the West involved the use of gravity to tap rivers and divert their flows into canals for delivery to farms and mines. This is also known as Newton’s Law.
II. The Law of Los Angeles: The Second Water Law of the West is the original law of Los Angeles. This L.A. Law states that “water runs uphill to money“. The development of energy technologies to lift water against the pull of gravity is the basis for modern Western civilization. … “
Continue reading from the Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood blog by clicking here.
ENTERTAINING NOTE: Check out Hugh Holub’s website, the General Delivery University. Never went to college? No problem! At General Delivery University, you can learn how to grow weeds and qualify for federally subsidized reclamation water at the College of Urban Agriculture and more! Check it out here: General Delivery University
Don Curlee: Voices of farmers out-shout fish on water-rights issues
Posted by: Maven on August 10, 2010 at 7:19 amFrom the Visalia Times-Delta, this column by Don Curlee:
“An incident involving ranchers defending their rights to water has shown how important it is for farmers to unite, speak up, speak out and speak often.
It occurred at the end of May in the Siskiyou County town of Etna, located in the northwest corner of California. Water rights are extremely important to the cattle- and hay producers in that area, who rely on the Scott River for irrigation water. Some of them are third- to fifth-generation occupants of their farms.
Fish interests in the Scott River are represented by a number of state and federal agencies, but primarily by the California Department of Fish and Game. Recent tightening of the restrictions on water withdrawals from the Scott River proposed by Fish and Game has caused resentment and resistance within the farm community. … “
Continue reading this column from Don Curlee by clicking here.
Aquafornia's Information Desk
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
Click here for full-sized calendar
Aquafornia's Photos on Flickr
Aquafornia's Mission
Aquafornia's mission is to educate readers about the complex and often controversial issues surrounding water in California.
Aquafornia is affiliated with the Water Education Foundation, an impartial, nonprofit organization, whose mission is to create a better understanding of water resources and foster public understanding and resolution of water resource issues through facilitation, education and outreach.
E-mail Newsletter
To receive email announcements from the Water Education Foundation, sign up here.
Web Resources
Agriculture
Climate Change & Water
Conservation
Current Conditions
Delta & SF Bay Resources
- Bay Delta Developments
- Bay Institute
- Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
- Delta Atlas
- Delta Protection Commission
- Delta Stewardship Council
- Delta Vision Foundation
- Delta WaterMaster
- Discover the Delta Foundation
- Restore the Delta
- San Francisco Bay and Delta (Access USGS)
- San Francisco Baykeeper
- San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science website
- San Francisco Estuary Partnership
Employment & Water
Environmental Organizations
Fishing Blogs/Organizations
Investing & Water
Landscaping
Legal Blogs
Legislative Committees - State & Federal
- California State Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife
- California State Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Water
- House Natural Resource Committee, Water & Power Subcommittee
- New State Water Legislation Mandates (KMTG)
- Senate Commitee on Environment & Public Works, Water and Wildlife Subcommittee
- The California Channel
Los Angeles River
Maven's Other Websites
News
Public Policy Organizations
Regional Water Associations
Salton Sea
Stormwater & Flood Control
Water Agencies
- ACWA – Association of California Water Agencies
- Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
- Contra Costa Water District
- East Bay Municipal Utility District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- Kern County Water Agency
- Long Beach Water Department
- Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
- Metropolitan Water District
- Municipal Water District of Orange County
- San Diego County Water Authority
- Santa Clara Valley Water District
- Sonoma County Water Agencies
- South San Joaquin Irrigation District
- State Water Contractors
- West Basin Municipal Water District
- Westlands Water District
Water Agencies - State & Federal
Water Blogs
- ACWA's Voices in Water blog
- Aguanomics
- Alex Breitler's Blog
- American Water Resources Assn. Blog
- Barry Nelson at the NRDC Switchboard
- Bay Delta Blog
- California Water Blog
- California Water Wars blog
- Chance of Rain
- Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood
- Delta National Park Blog
- EDF's On The Waterfront
- Greed, Green & Grains
- Green Roots Blog (PCL)
- GrokSurf's San Diego blog
- Inkstain – jfleck
- Klam Blog
- L. A. Creek Freak
- On the Public Record
- Peter Gleick’s City Brights blog
- Restore the Delta's blog
- Southern California Water Committee Blog
- Spouting Off – Mark Gold of Heal the Bay
- State of the Planet Blog
- The California Spigot
- Thirsty in Suburbia
- Tom Philp's Blog
- Valley Economy Blog
- Water Cooler Blog
- Water Librarian's Blog
- Water SISWEB
- Waterblogged (Shawn McKinnon)
- Watering the Desert
- WaterWired
Water Information
News Article Archives
- Agriculture
- Aquafornia News & Exclusives
- Central Valley Project
- Climate change & water supply
- Conservation
- Delta Issues
- Desalination
- Development & Population
- Drinking Water & Bottled Water
- Drought Tolerant Landscaping
- Drought, Weather & Snowpack
- Energy & Water
- Events
- Flood Control/Stormwater
- General Water Issues
- Groundwater
- History
- Indian Water Rights
- Infrastructure
- Innovative Ideas
- International Water Issues
- Invasive Plants & Species
- Investing in water
- Legislation – State & Federal
- Levees
- National water news
- Oceans & Beaches
- People in the News
- Politics of Water
- Recycled Water
- Regional Water Issues
- San Joaquin River Restoration
- State Water Project (DWR)
- Storage and supply
- Transfers
- Uncategorized
- Water Agency News
- Water Banking
- Water Quality
- Water Rights
- Weird & Wacky Water News
- Wildlife & Endangered Species