North state lawsuit a major onslaught in war over water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 19, 2010 at 8:25 amFrom the Contra Costa Times:
“Invoking the specter of a century-old Los Angeles water grab, Northern California farmers have filed a lawsuit that may escalate the state’s ongoing water crisis.
The farmers say the San Joaquin Valley communities hardest hit by drought and new protections for endangered species in the Delta — including the nation’s largest irrigation district — are nevertheless illegally getting water that belongs to the northerners.
“The last thing we want to see is the Sacramento Valley become another Owens Valley,” said Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority general manager Jeff Sutton. He was referring to the early 20th century raid on the Owens Valley by Los Angeles, an episode made famous by the 1974 movie “Chinatown.”
At issue are guarantees made before California’s two major water projects were built to deliver water through the Delta to parts of the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.
Those guarantees, known as “area of origin” laws, say that water-rich areas of the state would not end up water poor when the projects started shipping water elsewhere. … “
Read more from the Contra Costa Times by clicking here.
Commentary: New law changes reporting for surface water diversions
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 9, 2010 at 2:17 pmFrom the California Farm Bureau Federation, this commentary by Danny Merkley:
“With last year’s passage of a comprehensive water package come new mandates. One piece of the package, Senate Bill 8 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, requires all surface water diversions to be reported, with a few exceptions. It is important to note that prior to this legislation passing, Section 5101 of the California Water Code already required statements of diversion and use, but with a number of exceptions and, under Section 5108 of the code, there were no legal consequences for failure to report. Now, there are.
The new law makes significant changes to the water diversion and use reporting laws. With some exceptions, those who divert water after Jan. 1, 2009, are subject to new penalties for failure to report and reporting misstatements. … “
Read more of this commentary by clicking here.
Water Worries: Farmers always in fear of losing water rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 9, 2010 at 6:51 amFrom UC Davis:
“Cindy Maddalena, who together with her husband manages a farm in Sierra Valley, Calif., are always in fear of losing their water rights. She explains that the state of California requires farmers to monitor their on-farm water quality and that the farmers themselves must bear the cost of the monitoring program. ”
State Water Board offers newsletter about water rights laws
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 28, 2010 at 3:35 pmFrom the Delta eNews:
“The State Water Board has begun a monthly newsletter about water rights laws and news. The first issue focuses on changes in water diversion and use reporting. Among these changes are new fines for failure to report water diversion and use and for reporting incorrect information. You can sign up for the digital newsletter here.”
Mixed water portfolio helps thirsty cities
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 20, 2010 at 4:28 pmFrom Physorg.com:
” (PhysOrg.com) — Computer simulations for drought-prone areas reveal that when urban water planners combine three approaches of buying water — permanent rights, options and leases — the city avoids surplus water and high costs, and reduces shortages, according to civil engineers.
“Just like with stock portfolios, if you buy diverse stocks, you diversify your risk,” said Patrick Reed, associate professor of civil engineering, Penn State. “Right now, cities don’t necessarily diversify their risk through the ways in which they buy water.”
Reed and his colleagues are trying to understand the benefits and trade-offs associated with buying water using a mix of market instruments in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of southern Texas. Those models incorporated the various purchasing options, along with variables such as cost, amount of surplus water and the probability of water shortages. … “
Read more from Physorg.com by clicking here.
Company goes after thieves who steal water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 20, 2010 at 4:09 pmFrom the Ventura County Star:
“A private company that supplies water to parts of Camarillo, Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park is ramping up a campaign against water theft, saying the crime hurts water users as well as the company.
Customers risk having their water contaminated when thieves take it, said Al Yanez, operations manager for California American Water.
Yanez said a theft typically involves a construction truck attaching a hose to a fire hydrant and filling up a large tank that can hold as much as 5,000 gallons. Yanez said it takes about 20 minutes to fill such a tank as high-pressure water gushes out of the hydrant.
Contamination can occur when water from the tank flows back into the hydrant, sending debris and other contaminants from the tank into a system that supplies households and businesses.
“We really don’t know where that truck has been,” Yanez said. “It could have just come from a waste-water treatment facility.” … “
Read more from the Ventura County Star by clicking here.
Foothills were place of origin for California’s water battle
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 16, 2010 at 8:40 amFrom the Amador Ledger-Dispatch, part 1 in a four-part series on the roots of California’s water battles:
“For roots of today’s biggest statewide issue – the diversion of flowing water – look locally.
California water was once a public resource. It was through the ungoverned California Gold Rush that water became divertable for private interests.
Eventually, a complex of government actions would guarantee water diversions for private interests. The latest such action is the “water package” of state legislation brokered recently by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Gold
Within California, the phenomenon of widespread water diversions first emerged in the Sierra Nevada foothills – with the 1848 discovery of gold, according to historian Norris Hundley and others. Unlike in earlier gold-mining hotspots – Georgia, Alabama – in the territory that would become the Golden State, water to separate ore from soils was scarce. … “
Read more from the Amador Ledger-Dispatch by clicking here.
Blog Commentary: More on the Sandridge/Mojave Water Agency water rights sale
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 3, 2009 at 8:15 amThe On the Public Record blog gets into the Sandridge sale of water rights to Mojave Water Agency, responding to a comment posted at the OTPR blog (original post here):
In the comments, Mr. Kurtz asked:
” I don’t get the outrage over the Sandridge deal. Dudley Ridge is a SWP contractor. No General Fund money ever went into the SWP. It is paid for entirely by the users. The growers have been paying for water, and paying off the bonded indebtedness since the project was installed. Now high water costs and marginal returns made it uneconomic for Voinovitch to continue farming that orchard. So I see three choices: a) walk away from his investment, b) continue to consume water at a loss or c) sell the water to another user who values it more highly. What would you do? Or maybe there’s another choice I am missing.
I have a number of reasons for my outrage; most of them can be sourced to different conceptions of what Sandridge (all water users) was really given back at the beginning. If you think that the ag SWP contractors were being given the use of water to make the desert bloom (actually to ‘reclaim’ the dank and desolate annual marsh of the SJV), then selling the water and pocketing the money violates that expectation. This plays out in a bunch of ways. … “
Read more from the On the Public Record blog by clicking here.
The blog follows up with a another post praising Seth Nidever’s coverage of this issue at the Hanford Sentinel. If you think abstract thoughts about “urban will pay ag and then water markets will take care of everything”, the stories in the Hanford Sentinel will tell you more precisely how that is all going down, says OTPR.
Read the full text of this post at the On the Public Record blog by clicking here.
RELATED: Hanford Sentinel Story Dec. 1
A California water rights primer from C-WIN
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 24, 2009 at 7:45 am
From the California Water Impact Network, this primer on California water rights:
“To mobilize water for human use, our society grants property rights to use water. No one is allowed to hoard or possess it because of its intrinsic properties and its necessity to all life and economic activity. The rights to use water also carry obligations to other water right holders, particularly not to harm the rights of other water right holders and not to harm the environment.
It is said by water lawyers, that water rights are social policy in times of drought.
In California, these are the more important types of water rights … “
Continue reading at the California Water Impact Network by clicking here.
Aguanomics blog: Property rights, prior appropriation & public trust
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 10, 2009 at 7:53 amFrom David Zetland at the Aguanomics blog:
“In the course of writing this post, Michael Hanemann and I debated the nature and importance of property rights. Michael said:
“Priority in appropriative water rights is rhetoric, not a functioning legal rule; it is a convenient myth that makes small children and economists happy.”
He sent along a few documents to back up his claim.
The first is his March 2009 testimony on water rights laws [doc] before the California Senate, in which he says:
I am concerned that, in the event of sharp reductions in stream flow and/or substantial increases in variability, there will be a growing political opposition to prior appropriation with seniority based on a historical hydrology that no longer exists in California.*
In that case, another possibility is some major change in surface water rights towards a more equal sharing of water, entailing the ultimate phasing out of existing appropriative rights with some substantial grace period, and with some appropriate compensation. …”
Continue reading this post at the Aguanomics blog by clicking here.
California’s Capitol blog: State water board gains some new powers and hard tasks
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 7, 2009 at 7:50 amFrom the California’s Capitol blog:
“Charlie Hoppin almost became one of the most powerful persons in state government.
He has plenty of power as chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board but the Yuba City rice farmer was going to be presiding over a body with significantly greater powers to halt water scofflaws – at least when the recently concluded special session on water began in late October.
But in the dead-of-night last minute deal cutting that capped the special session the very interests that feared those powers would be leveled against them, succeeded in removing them from the package.
Among the recommendations of the Delta Vision Task Force, whose two years of hearings and investigation were the foundation of much of the water package, were expanding the already broad powers of the water board to better prevent illegal diversions, improve conservation and protect water quality. …”
Read more from the California’s Capitol blog by clicking here.
Peter Gleick: Who is stealing California’s water?
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 31, 2009 at 7:53 amFrom Peter Gleick at the City Brights blog:
“Someone is stealing our water. Many someones. But who and how much? No one knows today, mostly because the agency responsible for keeping an eye on water rights and use–the State Water Resources Control Board–is blind, deaf, and dumb.
Blind, because they don’t look. Deaf, because they don’t listen to or act on most requests to investigate water rights allocations and use. Dumb, because they don’t talk about these issues. “Asleep at the switch,” as a colleague describes it.
What do I mean by stealing water? I mean people extract water from our rivers and streams without a right to do so. Legal water rights are managed by the State Board. Water rights permit and license holders are required by the California Code of Regulations to file reports with the State Water Board on their water diversion and use amounts. Fewer than 70 percent of permit holders actually submit these reports. There is no penalty for failure to file a report and, worse, no verification of the numbers reported. Further, information is not available to compare face value of water rights to actual use. Some, perhaps many, rights holders are likely taking more than their right allows. …”
Read more from Peter Gleick at the City Brights blog by clicking here.
Martin Zehr commentary: California’s water use, water rights and diversions
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 29, 2009 at 5:54 amFrom Martin Zehr of the California Greens party, this guest commentary:
“Outdated compacts between states and the federal government exist in regards to the needs of upstream and downstream water deliveries to those states through which rivers flow. Most of the requirements on the states were formulated prior to the massive population growths and increased demand for the water resource in Western states. For example, the Colorado River Compact was established in 1922.
The states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California are states included in the Colorado River Compact. In December 2007, new guidelines were developed by the Secretary of the Interior to address declining water flows in the river due to drought. Senator John McCain, to his credit, advocated the Compact be renegotiated. Most states have not done so, often for fear of losing allocations. Instead, they have often had to face lawsuits from other states for delivery failures. Such was the case on the Pecos River, when the state of Texas took the state of New Mexico to court for failing to fulfill deliveries and for not establishing effective water management to protect downstream supplies. The result was a lawsuit that resulted ina federal Special Master being brought in to manage the waters of the Pecos in NM and the state paid $70 million to meet the requirements of the Compact. As a result of the law suit, the state of NM established a Strategic Water Reserve to guarantee downstream deliveries.
Aguanomics blog: Huffman & his position on property rights for water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 19, 2009 at 8:03 amFrom David Zetland at the Aguanomics blog:
“Last week, Jared Huffman, member of the California Assembly and Chair of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, gave an excellent talk on “Resolving the Delta Crisis.” Huffman is a “card carrying environmentalist” who worked to restore flows in the San Joaquin River as a NRDC lawyer.
[Click through to the Aguanomics blog for links to the audio files for Huffman's introduction and presentation.]
These are a few highlights:
* The Department of Water Resources is indeed a captive organization, serving the needs of the State Water Project contractors over those of the people of California. Huffman says that “some people” are indeed considering spinning off the SWP to contractors so that DWR can get back to managing the State’s resources for the public good. The interesting question is “on what terms.” I recently learned that the SWP has about $1 billion in outstanding debt. Theoretically, SWP contractors will “own” the facility once that amount is paid off, but what would happen if the State declares the debt “paid” and then puts the SWP up for sale to the highest bidder? …”
Read more from the Aguanomics blog by clicking here.
Aguanomics blog: Water right priority enforcement
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 13, 2009 at 8:03 amFrom David Zetland at the Aguanomics blog:
“I have been interested lately in enforcement of the prior appropriation doctrine in the west. Simply, the doctrine says that the oldest water rights are superior to rights perfected later in time on the same water body.
However, there is a wide range of enforcement of priority in the west. As far as I can tell, California hardly enforces priority. Yes, there are examples of enforcement, but they are the exception. Colorado, on the other hand, enforces priority daily when necessary, using real-time emails and closure of headgates. Nebraska does as well, although not to the same extent as Colorado. Arizona is an interesting case with its current massive adjudication – see this detailed and interesting article by Feller. …”
Read more from Aguanomics by clicking here.
Peter Gleick: Is some California water use unconstitutional?
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 13, 2009 at 7:42 am
From Peter Gleick at his blog, City Brights:
As of now, Sacramento has some new rules about water use. These rules, at least marginally, begin to address that city’s high level of residential use. The rules put some constraints on the time of day (and day of week, and method) that residents can water their lawns and wash their cars. This little step raises a far more serious and comprehensive question: What water use in California should no longer be considered constitutionally valid?
Water Number: 280. According to the Sacramento Bee, this is the number of gallons of water east Sacramento residents use each day for all uses (the comparable state average is 192). This is one of the highest water consumption rates in the nation. And about 65% of that water is used outdoors, mostly for lawns and landscapes.
The source of this water is taken directly from the Sacramento River and from groundwater wells throughout the North American Groundwater Basin, all of which feed the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. During the current water crisis, when reservoirs are low, deliveries increasingly limited, and solutions to the San-Joaquin Delta crisis (and other regional water crises) still out of reach, we need to re-evaluate what are “reasonable” and “beneficial” uses of our strained water resources.
Read more from Peter Gleick by clicking here.
Water wars out West: Keep what you catch!
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 2, 2009 at 7:53 amFrom NPR’s Morning Edition:
The West remains one of the fastest growing regions of the country, and that continues to put pressure on scarce water supplies.
So, Colorado recently made it legal for some homeowners to capture and collect the raindrops and snowflakes that fall on their own roofs. That had been considered stealing because the water would flow into a stream or aquifer, where it belonged to someone else; Utah and Washington state have similar bans.
The change in Colorado may seem minor, but this could signal the beginning of a water-law revolution.
Many people think water-rights need to be revamped, while others disagree:
“Western water-rights laws were done in the 1800s, and they need some serious overhaul,” says Pope. He says the first-in-line basis is inefficient. “It needs to be based on need — it needs to be based on proper use of water. We don’t need to be using drinking water to wash cars and water lawns and gardens and flush toilets,” he says.
Those near the front of the line disagree. Western tribes guard their historic water rights, as do municipalities like Denver. “You have a basic foundation for how water is owned and administered in Colorado, and a wholesale change — to say, ‘Oh yeah, take all the water you want off your roof,’ — is actually a fundamental change in that,” says Chips Barry, general manager at Denver Water.
Read more from NPR’s Morning Edition by clicking here.
Nevada Irrigation District working to shore up water rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 21, 2009 at 7:58 amFrom YubaNet.com:
In the minds of many state bureaucrats, farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists, the value of water far surpasses that of gold. The same sentiment is also held by water agencies like Nevada Irrigation District. That is why for the past several years district staff have been actively pursuing the licensing of NID’s ten remaining water right permits.
At the district’s May 13 board meeting directors heard a presentation on the status of this process. According to NID Operations Manager Don Wight, acquiring water rights is a complicated process. While NID already has 18 existing licenses, it must secure licensing approval on 10 use permits for its lower division, which includes Scotts Flat, Rollins and Combie Reservoirs. These permits are for both consumptive and non-consumptive (such as hydropower and recreation) use.
A license is the final confirmation of an appropriative right and remains in effect as long as license conditions are met and the water is put to beneficial use. Beneficial uses in California include domestic, aquaculture, fire protection, fish and wildlife, frost protection, irrigation, industrial use, mining, municipal, power, recreation, and livestock watering.
In the past four years, NID has been working to quantify the amount of water beneficially used under these 10 permits with the goal of making its water rights consistent with historic and current NID operations.
Read more from YubaNet.com by clicking here.
California water rights and flexibility; is there a shadowy mastermind at work?
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 30, 2009 at 12:30 pmFrom the On the Public Record blog, a series of posts about California’s current system of water rights. First the blog begins with laying out two defenses of our current water rights system, one by Laura King Moon of the State Water Contractors Board, given in her testimony to the Little Hoover Commission, and the other given in the position paper of the newly created Public Water Coalition: Two defenses of our current water rights system
Here is the OTPR’s quick summary of our current water rights system.
In another post, the OTPR discusses water infrastructure investments and water rights:
One of my consistent themes is that scarcity requires management. The districts whose water rights guarantee them abundance do not invest nearly enough in their physical systems. It is especially blatant for the districts with the most senior water rights, from before 1914. They have plenty, will never get cut back, and have primitive, wasteful delivery systems. The city of Sacramento, with pre-1914 water rights, doesn’t even have water meters on houses. The city of Folsom is the same. San Juan Water District is the same, and has the highest per capita water use in the state, four times as high as average. I don’t even know how they get their usage that high. Fix leaks? Why bother? With their water rights, they will never run out.
Irrigation districts follow the same pattern. The district with the largest, oldest water rights in the state, Glenn Colusa, has earthen canals and barely any controls. Here. Look. That’s a dirt ditch with the occasional flashboard check structure in it. Scroll around. The whole district is like that2. They have not invested money on tight water control. Why would they? Under our current rights system, they will not face scarcity. Spending money on their physical capital wouldn’t get them anything. This holds true for all the old, big rights holders. When people have rights to an amount of water close to what they (perceive they) need, they invest in capital to use it well. When water rights guarantee abundance, districts invest enough to move it around sloppily, but no more than that. Our current water rights system does not direct investment very well. It gives districts the security to do some investing, but it allows severe underinvestment for the most senior rights holders.
Read the full text of this post from the On the Public Record Blog: California’s Current Water Rights and Investment
In this next post, the OTPR blog expresses surprise that both defenses of our current water rights system tout flexibility:
All this talk about the great flexibility of California water rights is strange to me, because, like, they aren’t. Riparian rights can only be used on land adjacent to the river; water under a riparian right can’t be stored. Appropriative rights can only be used for the permitted point of diversion, place of use and purpose of use1. An appropriative right will have an upper limits on flow and maybe also on annual total diversion. It has permissible dates or season of diversion. Per the Constitution, only beneficial use is legal. If you stop using all or part your water right, the right is destroyed in all or part. The right can be modified for $1000, a change permit and environmental documentation, if the State Water Resources Control Board approves the change application. It is difficult if not impossible to get a new right, since most systems are overallocated; the only reallocation method between contemporary users is a full-fledged court adjudication and watermaster for the river or watershed.
I don’t think these restrictions are entirely nonsensical, although some of them are arbitrary vestiges of older laws. But this is not a flexible water rights system, nor one capable of adapting to additional users or changes in hydrology.
The blogger muses why the water ‘big boys’ are emphasizing flexibility in a system which clearly is not… is it some strategic ploy from a shadowy mastermind???
Check it out from the On the Public Record Blog: California Water Rights and Flexibility
Do you want to know more about California’s water rights? Check out the Water Education Foundation’s Layperson’s Guide to Water Rights. It’s written in plain English, and includes sections on surface water rights, groundwater rights, water transfers and more.
Who owns the rain? Hint: It’s not always homeowners; Facing certain water scarcity, cities and states have begun to wrestle with the conundrum of water rights versus conservation
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 23, 2009 at 7:59 amFrom Popular Mechanics:
Capturing rain may be one of humanity’s most ancient methods of acquiring water, but now it’s coming back in vogue. Rather than press their luck with drought, conservation-conscious homeowners are setting up rudimentary rain barrels and elaborate rainwater storage systems to catch precipitation for nondrinking purposes, such as watering their lawns. But while rainwater may seem like a global common, nowadays it depends on where you live: By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position—smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies.
While laws about rainwater collection are often murky, Colorado’s are quite clear: Homeowners do not own the rain that falls on their property. The Rocky Mountain state uses a convoluted mix of first-come, first-serve water rights, some of which date back to the 1850s, and riparian rights that belong to the owners of land lying adjacent to water. A single person catching rain wouldn’t make a difference to water rights holders, according to Brian Werner of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. But if everyone in Denver captured rain, he says, that would upset the state’s 150-year-old water-allocation system. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources estimates that 86 percent of water deliveries go to agriculture, which is already stressed by dwindling supplies. And because 19 states and Mexico draw water from rivers that originate in the Colorado Rockies, backyard water harvesting can have widespread implications (of course, the same goes for water that comes from the tap in these regions).
Read more from Popular Mechanics by clicking here.
Water experts call for restructured water-rights system: State needs to adapt soon, ag professor tells committee
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 14, 2009 at 7:29 amFrom Capital Press:
Water experts told senators Tuesday that California’s system of water rights needs an overhaul to meet a future of greater scarcity and higher demand.
As the demands on a static water supply grow, the state needs to rethink the appropriative water rights, along with the riparian rights derived from English common law that have survived since the Gold Rush, experts said.
As population expands and climate change brings greater scarcity, the state needs to adapt soon, said Michael Hanemann, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California-Berkeley, told a hearing of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water.
“For water resource management in California, it is temperature that is going to be the main driver of change in our water system,” Hanemann said. “The combined effect is the California water supply is likely to be reduced … at the same time as the demand for water increases. The single best adaptation California can do is to start to get its house in order now.
“(One) possibility is some sort of substantive change in surface water rights, toward a more equal sharing of water,” Hanemann said.
Read more from the Capital Press by clicking here.
In an unusual step, state board warns water-right holders
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 11, 2009 at 10:46 amFrom the California Farm Bureau Federation:
Farmers and ranchers who hold water right permits and licenses could lose access to the state’s rivers and creeks this year if current drought conditions do not improve, the State Water Resources Control Board warned.
In a letter that went out in late February to some 7,400 water right holders in the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Russian rivers and the Central Coast and Tule Lake watersheds, the state water board said unless there is sufficient additional rainfall this season, no water will be available for many surface water diverters.
California’s water supply has dwindled due to three consecutive dry years. And while recent rainfall provided some relief, the storms were not enough to lift the state’s current drought status, with reservoirs far from capacity and the snowpack still below average.
The letter from the board said when there is not enough water for all users, allocations will be made in order of water right priority. In addition, it noted that it might even be necessary this year to curtail more senior water rights, such as riparian rights or pre-1914 rights, which pre-date legislation for appropriating water and do not require a permit from the state water board.
“This is notice to direct diverters that they are in the same boat as the farmers who get water service through contracts with the big State Water Project and the Central Valley Project,” said Chris Scheuring, managing counsel for the California Farm Bureau Federation Natural Resources and Environmental Division.
“Just about all classes and types of agricultural water users are going to have to deal with this drought and are likely facing a very difficult water year,” he said.
Read more from the California Farm Bureau Federation by clicking here.
The Delta smelt and Sacramento River settlement contracts
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 18, 2009 at 8:07 amFrom the Pacific Legal Foundation’s blog, PLF on the ESA, this commentary/analysis:
When it comes to the threatened delta smelt species, most of the attention has focused on the pumps that export water from northern California southward and the extent to which pumping should be restricted for the benefit of the smelt. Litigation in the Eastern District of California led to the invalidation of a 2005 biological opinion due the BiOp’s inadequate consideration of how coordinated state and federal water operations would affect the smelt.
What has largely gone unnoticed in that same litigation, however, are the claims relating to water deliveries that occur upstream of the pumping. Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental organizations argue that the Bureau of Reclamation has unlawfully executed and is illegally implementing 28 long-term Sacramento River settlement renewal contracts because it failed to engage in Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations for these contracts.
The story behind these settlement contracts is complex, but the main thing to understand is that Reclamation needed to enter into a settlement with Sacramento River water users if it was going to satisfy the needs of the federal Central Valley Project and avoid litigation. Judge Oliver Wanger, who is overseeing the current delta smelt litigation, has noted that the United States and water users entered into the “Settlement Contracts” in order to “avoid conflict while preserving the right of either party in any subsequent water right litigation.”
Read more from the Pacific Legal Foundation’s blog by clicking here.
The Klamath Basin: The tricky business of water rights in the West
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 13, 2009 at 8:21 amFrom AlterNet:
Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed to decide whether irrigators in the Klamath Basin “own” water delivered by the federal Klamath Reclamation Project. This latest development is one more twist in an ongoing property rights case that illustrates both how difficult it can be to determine who holds precisely what rights in western water and how property rights claims, even spurious ones, can frustrate ecosystem restoration efforts.
Usually, claims of ownership are made to recover a resource from someone else. But that’s not the issue here. The United States agrees that when the Project has water available it must deliver that water to these irrigators rather than to anyone else. But the irrigators want more than that. They want the United States to pay them for having limited deliveries from the Project in the drought year of 2001 in order to protect threatened and endangered fish. Having failed so far to get that result in the federal courts, they are now using procedural maneuvering to get another bite at the apple from the Oregon courts.
We detailed the complex history of water use in the Upper Klamath Basin in our 2008 Island Press book, Water War in the Klamath Basin: Macho Law, Combat Biology, and Dirty Politics. In a nutshell, in the critically dry summer of 2001, the federal Bureau of Reclamation closed the headgates of the Klamath Project because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service had determined that the needs of endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and threatened salmon in the Klamath River left no water available for irrigation use.
Read more from AlterNet by clicking here.
Central Valley drought may shift California water politics; Westside farmers could make claims to San Joaquin River
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 2, 2009 at 7:37 amFrom the Merced Sun Star:
An unprecedented shift of San Joaquin River water from farmers in the east Valley to those in the west could further complicate the scramble to save crops from drought this year.
At stake is precious San Joaquin River water, which has helped east-side farmers cultivate a multibillion-dollar economy on 1 million acres over the last half century.
Many Westside irrigation districts import water from Northern California. But four of them also have historic rights to the river. Under terms of special contracts drafted decades ago but never exercised, the four could move to the front of the line for water from the San Joaquin. The deal was made to free up enough river water for east-side farmers.
Facing drought and probable water-pumping restrictions in Northern California, federal authorities must decide if they should tap Millerton Lake, where the river is held back by Friant Dam, for the Westsiders.
On the east side, folks are uneasy. Nobody knows how much water could be lost. “In the 50 years-plus of the project, there has never been a call like this on the San Joaquin River,” said Ron Jacobsma, general manager of the Friant Water Users Authority, representing 15,000 east-side farmers.
Read more from the Merced Sun Star by clicking here.
Advocate: Watch your water rights; Nonprofit founder warns ‘beneficial use,’ other terms could be redefined
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 25, 2008 at 8:25 amFrom the Capital Press:
An escalating competition for California’s limited water supply could cause a redefinition of water rights and a host of lawsuits, a private property rights advocate contends.
The outcomes from such environmental initiatives as Delta Vision, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and others could also increase pressure to send more Northern California water south, asserts Susan Sutton, of Maxwell, who helped found a nonprofit organization that assists families with water rights issues.
In a newsletter essay last week, Sutton zeroed in on statements in a recent primer by the Legislative Analyst’s Office that the “reasonable use” requirement under the state’s water rights system should be updated to reflect the scarcity of resources. “It is in the interest of the state to undertake a concerted effort to realign the water rights system to better reflect modern needs and circumstances,” reads the primer, published in October. “For example, this could be done by accounting for the potential for water conservation and water use efficiency in managing water rights.”
Sutton argues that if the legislature were to try to redefine “beneficial use,” its definition might well favor urban areas to the detriment of agriculture and other rural rights holders, particularly in the north. “I think the net-net is it’s all going to end up in the courts,” Sutton said in an interview. “It’s all going to end up in lawsuits.
“We want to do our part” to conserve water and protect fish, she said. “But we also want to do what we can do to protect our water rights.”
Read more of this article from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Tehama supervisor looking out for the north state
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 22, 2008 at 5:52 amFrom the Redding Record Searchlight:
Water, air, forestry and the Williamson Act – those are Bob Williams’ priorities as he represents rural Northern California at the state level. Williams, who is in his third year as a Tehama County supervisor, was elected this month to the executive board of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). “I am the only supervisor north of Sacramento (on the executive committee),” Williams said. As such, he takes the responsibility seriously.
Water rights captured his attention at the annual CSAC meeting in San Diego earlier this month. “They’re talking about doing away with area of origin and going to public trust,” Williams said. “That means the water would go to where the votes are.”
He attended a workshop on the state’s water dilemma and said he was appalled by the lack of representation from the counties that would be most affected. He is trying to form a coalition with other counties, such as Siskiyou, Trinity, Glenn and Colusa, to strengthen their position and protect area-of-origin rights.
“Tehama is an agricultural county,” Williams said. “And if you don’t have water, you don’t have agriculture.”
Read more from the Record Searchlight by clicking here.
Breaking News: Auburn Dam water Rights Revoked
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 2, 2008 at 4:11 pmFrom Friends of the River:
December 2, 2008 – The California State Water Board voted unanimously to revoke the Bureau of Reclamation’s water rights to build the auburn dam. The Order cited California’s tough “use it or lose it” water rights policy, in which the Water Board noted that the Bureau failed to construct the project and apply water to beneficial use with due diligence as required by state law.
More on this to follow, I’m sure …..
What if water rules change? Water users who rely on federal projects to deliver water may think they know what their rights are, but they could be wrong.
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 23, 2008 at 7:35 amFrom Ag Weekly Online:
Water users who rely on federal projects to deliver water may think they know what their rights are, but they could be wrong.
Take the shareholders in the Stockton East Water District. The district is located in a part of California that has been heavily dependent on ground water since the Gold Rush days. The aquifer is in a state of critical overdraft, said Jennifer Spaletta, an attorney from California that is representing Stockton East in a court case that began when she was still in school.
In the 1970s, the Bureau of Reclamation built a dam on the Stanislaus River and created a reservoir that holds 2.4 million acre-feet of water to relieve the pressure on the aquifer. BuRec contracted with two entities to provide 155,000 acre-feet of water provided those entities built the infrastructure to get the water from the reservoir to their projects.
So Stockton East sold bonds and assessed everyone from irrigators to homeowners to raise the $65 million needed to build the 25 mile-long conveyance system that included tunneling through the mountains.
The BuRec contracts were signed in 1983, the canal system was completed in 1992, the same year Congress redirected BuRec to use 800,000 acre-feet of the yield of the reservoir for fish restoration. As soon as Stockton East finished building the canal system, it asked for 10,000 acre-feet of water and was denied.
And that raises a couple of questions: What does the law mean when contractors have contracts to receive water from a federal Bureau of Reclamation project but the federal government decides to use the water for a different purpose? If the government decides to use the water for fish restoration is that a takings, a breach of contract or a really bad deal?
Read more from the Ag Weekly Online by clicking here.
State officials move to revoke water rights for the proposed Auburn Dam
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 24, 2008 at 6:14 amFrom Stockton’s Record:
The proposed Auburn dam, which San Joaquin County had long hoped would bolster its water supply, was all but dead Thursday after state water officials issued a tentative order canceling the water rights.
According to the draft order, the State Water Resources Control Board recognizes the county’s need but adds that San Joaquin County was not guaranteed water from the proposed dam on the American River.
More from Stockton’s Record by clicking here.
The Sacramento Bee adds this:
Water rights associated with an Auburn dam enable the Bureau of Reclamation to store a staggering amount of water – 5 million acre-feet – at different times of the year. But since the project was halted by earthquake concerns in 1976, the federal government has failed to proceed with construction on any new version of the dam, as required by the terms of its water rights.
“In fact,” the order states, “the only construction that Reclamation has performed relative to the project was to restore north fork American River flows to the former dam site by sealing a bypass tunnel necessary for project construction.”
Once removed from federal hands, the water rights could become available to others.
Read more from the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Time to stand up for water rights and the right to farm
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 11, 2008 at 7:52 amFrom the Western Farm Press:
If you’ve never written or called your state legislators, it’s time to let them know you oppose the Pacific Institute’s “More With Less” report. CAFA and other organizations have been on the offensive since the report was released on Sept. 9. “More With Less” stands for more regulations, an erosion of water rights, less water, and less freedom to make crop selections. The report claims growers can grow more with less water and should shift to “high value” tree and vegetable crops.
The Institute wants courts and regulators to “apply California’s water-rights laws more rationally to ensure water is being used reasonably and beneficially.” Another recommendation: “Redesigning misguided federal and state subsidies that encourage wasteful use of water.”
The report (available at www.pacinst.org) is a blueprint for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, but it should concern all regions in California. If implemented, it would set a dangerous precedent. CAFA’s letter below, sent to the California Department of Food & Agriculture, provides key points to use when writing or e-mailing state legislators.
[start of letter]The California Alfalfa & Forage Association, a statewide organization, is in agreement with the California Farm Bureau and other groups that oppose the Pacific Institute’s “More With Less” report released on Sept. 9. Alfalfa was falsely singled out by the Institute in May, and its report again demonstrates that it understands neither agriculture nor market dynamics. If implemented, their recommendations would disrupt markets, cause severe hardships and have a negative impact on the environment.
Read the rest of the letter from the California Alfalfa & Forage Association by clicking here.
Amador County plan intended to head off statewide battle over water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 17, 2008 at 6:43 amFrom the Amador Ledger Dispatch:
There are drums of war beating all over the state of California and residents of the Sierra Foothill counties will soon be hearing their ominous sound. The battle is over water. As a precaution, the Amador Water Agency is breaking out a new weapon – purple pipe.
Standing before a screen displaying the agency’s latest map, AWA engineering and planning manager Gene Mancebo presented the board of directors with the Purple Pipe Plan at its meeting Thursday morning. The plan is to create a water system that will convey recycled water through purple pipes. “The agency’s objective,” said AWA general manager Jim Abercrombie, “is to maximize our water supply.”
Mancebo added, “We have to build a portfolio of water supply.”
Additional water rights may be available if the agency can provide evidence that recycled water is replacing a significant quantity of its treated water. The goal, according to Abercrombie, is production and use of nearly 3 million gallons per day of recycled water, which would free up 3,000 acre feet of untreated water.
The article also discusses Amador County’s pre-1914 water rights in depth. Read more from the Amador Ledger-Dispatch by clicking here.
Water rights discussed at Bay Area Delta Vision meeting
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 22, 2008 at 5:33 amFrom the Village Green, a SF Chronicle blog, a post written by reporter Kelly Zito, who attended the recent Delta Vision meeting in Oakland. Water rights were part of the discussion. It’s not just about the Delta, the task force said, but also about a system built around 150 year old thinking:
Specifically, panel members have discussed the idea of rejiggering the state’s complicated and controversial system of water rights.
Put simply, state laws “provide the highest priority to the earliest water users,” according to the state Water Resource Board. Also known as the “Doctrine of Prior Appropriation”, or “first in time, first in right” (Whew. The law/policy portion of this entry is nearly over). That means that if you landed here during the Gold Rush and starting drawing water from a local stream, you’re water rights are pretty solid, and you’re more likely than others to receive your full water allotment.
However, the task force is wondering whether that model fits the water needs of 21st century California. According to a recent task force report, research shows “the state… has substantial ability to reallocate water when necessary to prevent unreasonable use, achieve water quality, protect the public trust, avoid public nuisance and respond to emergency situations.”
For those water wonks who have hung with me this far, that’s kind of a big deal. Water rights in California are considered sacred and untouchable. If you want to start a big water fight, bring up the word “reallocation” to a Central Valley farmer whose rights date back 100 years.
Big changes and big waves appear to be ahead.
Read the full text from the Village Green by clicking here.
Northern California counties file lawsuit against DWR to receive full SWP allocation under ‘area of origin’ rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 21, 2008 at 7:59 amFrom the Weekly Calistogan:
The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is among those challenging DWR in Sacramento County Superior Court. At stake are state supplies that Napa Valley cities depend on for half their water. While Calistoga gets about half its water supply from the state, American Canyon depends on the State Water Project for nearly all of its supplies.
Earlier this year the state cut State Water Project deliveries by 65 percent, citing drought conditions that left Sierra Nevada reservoirs below normal.
If the suit is successful, DWR would have to give Napa County and the other plaintiffs 100 percent of their allocation every year, drought or no drought.
The plaintiffs — Napa County, Butte County, Solano County Water Agency and Yuba City — argue that they are entitled to full allocations under the terms of the 1963 contracts that launched the State Water Project.
The project, the largest of its kind in the nation, supplies more than four million acre feet annually to Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern California water districts.
The plaintiffs, who receive two percent of this amount, say their 1963 contracts exempt them from dry-year cutbacks because they contribute water to the Sacramento River Delta, from which the State Water Project draws its supplies.
From the Solano-Napa Times Herald:
The “area of origin” refers to land north of the Delta, said David Okita, Solano Water Agency general manager.
The DWR and the Napa and Solano agencies differ on how to interpret the original contracts agencies have securing their state water supplies.
The four agencies maintain the contracts protect them from water cuts during shortages. One reason they are immune is that their jurisdictions lie within areas where the water originates, according to the lawsuit. The other 25 agencies with state water contracts only have rights to surplus water and have to bear bigger reductions during dry spells, Okita said.
The lawsuit allegations were bolstered by a recent court decision siding with the agencies with “area of origin” rights, he said.
DWR information officer Don Strickland said its lawyers are studying the lawsuit. He said the state is not ready to make an official response.
The contract dispute has been brewing for a while, Strickland added. “They can’t understand why they can’t get a full allotment and say, ‘We come from the part of the country the water comes from,’ ” he said. “They want their full allotment.”
Napa County’s water situation this year is not dire, but things could worsen should the state hold back more water in 2009, Riesenberg said. This year, Napa cities are relying more on local reservoirs and other supplies, he said.
Solano users also are not in bad shape, mainly because the county has plenty of water stored in Lake Berryessa, Okita said. “We are in better shape than most folks, but we should be getting 100 percent of our state water supplies instead of 35 percent,” Okita said.
An editorial in the Napa Register sees water wars on the horizon, as trouble is brewing:
The pressure on the Delta comes from many sides: Municipal users, agricultural users, fish and wildlife and their advocates among humans, problems caused by toxic runoff. In addition, the health of San Francisco and San Pablo bays are largely dependent on the health of the Delta.
Lawsuits between government agencies over complex issues like water allocations have a tendency to drag on forever. It is our hope that the Department of Water Resources sees the importance — and minimal harm — of upping the supply to the affected agencies and eases the pressure without marathon litigation.
But when the lawsuit is over, it’s a sure bet that California’s water wars will still be raging.
The Weekly Calistogan article references a press release. I have looked all over, and I cannot find one online. If someone knows where I can find it, please let me know!
Delta overhaul can’t undercut northern rights, says editorial
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 16, 2008 at 8:28 amFrom Redding’s Record Searchlight, this editorial:
Will the governor’s push to fix the water disaster in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta cause a new disaster up north?
That’s the warning of a letter the Shasta County supervisors will weigh sending to the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force — the group appointed to figure out how to fix the rickety plumbing that keeps two-thirds of Californians in drinking water.
“We understand the critical need to … save the collapsing ecosystem of the Delta, but we fear that decisions affecting water rights in our region will lead to a Delta-like catastrophe,” reads the letter, which the supervisors will discuss Tuesday.
What’s the trouble? The Delta Vision strategic plan, released in June, puts too much emphasis on centralized management of water at the expense of local control. And it casts the discussion of water use in terms of “public trust” while playing down historic water rights and the area-of-origin rights of the north state.
Read more of this editorial from Redding’s Record Searchlight by clicking here.
Aquafornia's Information Desk
Aquafornia's Photos on Flickr
Recent Posts
- Thursday’s top of scroll: Judge rules drought water transfers required environmental review
- Judge Vilardi rejects DWR’s 2009 drought water bank approval
- Western Weather Blog takes a look at the western snowpack
- Water, energy conservation linked; Officials point to need to overhaul lifestyles
- Top speakers on the agenda at the Water Education Foundation’s Executive Briefing, March 25 & 26
- Large increase in CVP water supplies
- ACWA: Low federal water allocation points to need for solutions; Despite increase in federal allocations in 2010, State’s water still in crisis
- The Biocrat: Some say Phil Detrich was a sellout. Others, a savior. He says he was just doing his job.
- Alex Brietler’s blog: Feds emphasize long-term Delta fix
- California’s coast saves water, inland regions use more
- Water Education Foundation announces photography contest – “California Water”
- Aging sewers add up to a big challenge in California
- USDA commits water quality assistance to help California’s agricultural producers
- HTO announces nationwide release of California ocean wastewater discharge report and inventory
- Trashing the deep
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 non-profit organization, whose mission is to create a better understanding of water issues and help resolve water resource problems through educational programs.
E-mail Newsletter
To receive email announcements from the Water Education Foundation, sign up here.
Web Resources
Agriculture
Climate Change & Water
Conservation
Delta Resources
Employment & Water
Environmental Organizations
Fishing Blogs
Investing & Water
Landscaping
Legal Blogs
Los Angeles River
News
Salton Sea
Twitter Feeds
Water Agencies
Water Blogs
- Aguanomics
- American Water Resources Assn. Blog
- Barry Nelson at the NRDC Switchboard
- Chance of Rain
- Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood
- EDF’s On The Waterfront
- Food and Water Watch Blog
- Great Lakes Law Blog
- H2ONCoast Blog
- Inkstain – jfleck
- On the Public Record
- Peter Gleick’s City Brights blog
- Spouting Off – Mark Gold of Heal the Bay
- Thirsty in Suburbia
- Water Cooler Blog
- Water SISWEB
- Water Words That Work
- Waterblogged
- WaterCrunch
- WaterWired
- Western Water Blog
Water Information
News Article Archives
- Agriculture
- Aquafornia Exclusives
- Biofuels
- Bottled water
- Climate change & water supply
- Commentary
- Conservation
- Delta Issues
- Desalination
- Drinking Water
- Drought Tolerant Landscaping
- Drought, Weather & Snowpack
- Events
- Flood Control
- General Water Issues
- Geothermal Energy
- Grandiose water plans
- Great Green Ideas
- Groundwater
- Hydropower
- Indian Water Rights
- Infrastructure
- International Water Issues
- Invasive Species
- Levees
- Monterey Agreements
- National water news
- Oceans and Beaches (all)
- Odds and Ends
- People in the News
- Rainwater Harvesting
- Recycled Water
- Regional Water Issues
- All-American Canal
- Antelope Valley
- Bakersfield
- Bay Area
- Central Coast
- Coachella Valley
- Colorado River Basin
- Imperial Irrigation District & Imperial Valley
- Lake Tahoe & the Sierra's
- Las Vegas & Nevada
- Los Angeles River
- Northern California
- Orange County
- Owens Valley & Mono Lake
- Riverside – San Bernardino
- Sacramento
- Salton Sea
- San Diego
- San Joaquin Valley
- Southern California
- Southwest Water Issues
- Westlands Water District
- Stormwater & Urban Runoff
- Uncategorized
- Water & Development
- Water & Energy
- Water & Investing
- Water & Population
- Water & the Environment
- Water & Wildlife
- Water Agency News (all)
- Water Banking
- Water History
- Water Legislation
- Water Quality
- Water Rights
- Water Storage
- Water Supply
- Water Technologies
- Water Transfers
- Weather Modification
- Weird & Wacky Water News