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.
On the Water Front blog: From paper to the real world: Stopping illegal water diversions in California
Posted by: Maven on August 5, 2010 at 6:40 amFrom Elliott Rector at the Environmental Defense Fund’s On the Water Front blog:
“On June 29, the California State Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee approved SB 565, an encouraging first step towards reforming the illegal use and diversion of water in California. This important bill will next be taken up in the Appropriations Committee, possibly next week.
Looking back to move forward
SB 565 is sponsored by Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael). This same group of key legislators made California's water crisis and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta their priority policy agenda in 2009, passing a robust policy reform package in November. But the final policy package did not address the dilemma of illegal water diversions. These legislators, along with conservation organizations like EDF and NRDC, are working to provide the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) with enforcement tools that will go a long way toward reducing illegal water diversions. .. “
Continue reading from the On the Water Front blog by clicking here.
Proposed law making it harder to sell Valley water rights gets new life
Posted by: Maven on July 15, 2010 at 6:10 amFrom the Hanford Sentinel:
“The ripples are still being felt from a Kings County farmer’s decision last year to sell $73.2 million in water rights to a Southern California water agency. The Kings County grand jury recently issued a report arguing that more should have been done to stop the sale and keep the water in the area, which relies on its agricultural economic base.
Now a bill designed to make such sales harder in California is bubbling back to the surface.
Originally authored by Assemblyman Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, in response to the Kings County sale, the bill died in the Assembly earlier this year amid a wide range of opposition.
The proposed law has been resurrected under the co-authorship of Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills. … “
Continue reading from the Hanford Sentinel by clicking here.
Dan Bacher: Pavley bill increasing fines for illegal water diversions opposed by Restore the Delta
Posted by: Maven on June 30, 2010 at 8:03 amFrom Dan Bacher at AlterNet:
” … SB 565 is sponsored by Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. While it is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the bill opposed by Restore the Delta and other groups.
“This bill would increase the Board's fines for illegal diversions (which have not been updated in nearly 20 years) to keep pace with inflation,\” said Barry Nelson of NRDC. “It would provide other enforcement related tools as well. An effective enforcement program would increase the incentives to discourage illegal water diversions.
He added, “This, of course, would help the troubled Bay-Delta system and other degraded rivers. But it would also benefit legal diverters, who can face water shortages and increased regulatory burdens as a result of illegal pumping.
However, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, said the bill will reduce or eliminate existing due process and property rights protections for California water rights holders. … “
Continue reading from Dan Bacher by clicking here.
Farmers freak over water reporting requirements
Posted by: Maven on June 25, 2010 at 8:18 amFrom New Times SLO:
“A wave of confusion and fear swept through the ranks of local farmers gathered at the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau June 21 as they heard something they dreaded: A new water diversion law comes into effect July 1. Few of them had heard about the law until just before the meeting and many were visibly upset by the new reporting requirements.
“We're getting water-boarded,\” said a tall farmer at the meeting dressed in a tall Stetson, well-worn shirt, jeans, and cowboy boots. He was referring to the State Water Resources Control Board, the arm of the Sacramento government that regulates the use of water in California.
The new law requires that landowners who divert water from a creek, river, or pump from a subterranean stream must report it to the State Water Board. A detailed form must be filled out for each diversion, listing in precise amounts both the amount of water that can and actually is used. The law is so broad that wells located near a stream or river are likely to be considered as surface water and therefore, must be registered. … “
Continue reading from the New Times SLO by clicking here.
Legal Analysis: California Farm Bureau Federation challenges Department of Fish and Game’s authority to regulate water rights
Posted by: Maven on June 23, 2010 at 8:03 amFrom Joseph M. Carpenter at Somach Simmons & Dunn:
“On May 25, 2010, the California Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau) filed suit against the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), alleging that DFG has exceeded its authority by recently interpreting Fish and Game Code section 1602 as requiring surface water users with valid water rights to notify DFG prior to diverting water, and potentially to obtain a streambed alteration permit. The Farm Bureau alleges that DFG's interpretation is contrary to the obligations prescribed under section 1602, which only apply to water diversions that substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of a watercourse. The Farm Bureau further alleges that DFG's interpretation constitutes a fundamental change in the application of section 1602, and will have the effect of requiring nearly every surface water user in California to notify DFG of its water use and potentially obtain a permit prior to diverting water from a watercourse.
Background
Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state, local governmental agency, or public utility to notify DFG before conducting any project or activity that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of … any river, stream, or lake. … “
Continue reading from Somach Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
Legal Alert: U.S. Supreme Court rules on takings clause in Florida case; Ruling important for California water agencies
Posted by: Maven on June 22, 2010 at 8:18 amFrom Best Best & Krieger:
“The U. S. Supreme Court waded into a thorny constitutional thicket by considering whether the courts, like other branches of government, are subject to the limitations of the Takings Clause of the U. S. Constitution when they change the definition of property. Under the Takings Clause, the government must pay compensation to a property owner when it “takes\” his property for public use, as when it exercises the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause also applies : and therefore a property owner is entitled to compensation : when the state excessively regulates his property, although the courts have not clearly defined how far the states can go in regulating property.
The question raised in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection was whether the Takings Clause also applies when a state court restricts a property owner's rights by changing the definition of property : that is, whether there can be a judicial taking of property. This is a very important issue in California and other states, particularly in the field of water rights regulation. The California Supreme Court held in 1983 in the famous Mono Lake case that the public trust doctrine applies to water rights, and therefore water users are subject to public trust limitations. If a judicial taking can occur, water users in California may be able to challenge the application of public trust principles to their rights, or at least seek compensation for the loss of their rights. … “
Continue reading from Best Best & Krieger by clicking here.
Column: Who owns California’s water?
Posted by: Maven on June 21, 2010 at 7:36 amFrom the Record Searchlight, this column by Bob Williams:
“Most of us have always believed that water flows downhill. We were recently corrected by Len Richardson, editor of the California Farmer who said, “Water tends to flow toward wealth.
Richardson has good reason for this cynical view and it's time for all Californians to take notice. Wealth has moved to take more and more control of California's waters. The rise of water oligarchs is nothing new and was brought home to anyone who saw the movie “Chinatown.
The action has now shifted to the San Joaquin Valley and to maneuvers there for privatizing control of water in the massive State Water Project. These are not work-a-day farmers we are talking about. One or two may own a broad-brimmed hat but their offices are in Sunnyvale and Beverly Hills. … “
Continue reading from the Record Searchlight by clicking here.
Thursday’s top of the scroll: Will instream flows affect your water rights? The State Water Resources Control Board reveals a new approach in the North Coast Instream Flow Policy
Posted by: Maven on June 10, 2010 at 8:43 amFrom Somach Simmons & Dunn:
“In a decision water users throughout the state should watch, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in May adopted a “Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams\” (North Coast Instream Flow Policy). The “North Coast Instream Flow Policy, which applies to the Russian River and other Northern California coastal streams, reveals an approach the SWRCB may take with respect to the various impending instream flow proceedings throughout California.
Background
Assembly Bill 2121 in 2004 required the SWRCB to “adopt principles and guidelines for maintaining instream flows in Northern California coastal streams as part of state policy for water quality control and for the purpose of water right administration. (Wat. Code, § 1259.4.) The SWRCB's “purpose of the proposed policy is to preserve the instream flows needed to protect fishery resources, while minimizing the water supply impacts of the proposed policy on other beneficial uses, including agricultural, municipal, domestic, and industrial uses. The policy was primarily intended to protect endangered fish and it thus focuses on measures that protect native fish populations with an emphasis on anadromous salmonids (coho salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead trout) that are all listed under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts. … “
More on the policy, plus conclusions and implications from Somach Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
Statements of Water Diversion and Use due July 1, 2010
Posted by: Maven on June 10, 2010 at 8:40 amFrom Somach Simmons & Dunn:
“Unless you are diverting surface water pursuant to an appropriative water rights permit or license, and subject to certain exceptions, surface water diverters must file an Initial Statement of Water Diversion and Use (Statement) with the Division of Water Rights of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) by July 1, 2010. Diverters that fail to meet the deadline may be subject to an initial $1,000 penalty, and additional fines of $500 per day if the violation continues after 30 days of a violation notification from the State Water Board.
The reporting requirements apply to:
\Ӣ Riparian water users;
\Ӣ Holders of pre-1914 appropriation rights;
\”¢ Water users with pending water right applications.… “
Continue reading this informational article from Somach Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
Rules of the California water wars just drastically changed
Posted by: Maven on May 20, 2010 at 8:08 amFrom the Independent Voter Network:
“A recent California Superior Court decision ruled that those who illegally divert water from streams and rivers can be sued because the consequent lack of water downstream, with its resultant problems, constitutes a violation of the public trust.
Among other things, this means governmental entities that are charged with maintaining such resources can also be sued. Environmental groups have most definitely taken note of this ruling and are planning actions.
“This new Superior Court ruling on Monday says that anyone who diverts water must provide enough flow for downstream fish and if they don't they can be sued by anyone,\” said Chris Malan of the Livings Rivers Council in Napa. He said there are at least 286 illegal water diversions in the Napa River watershed and that many of them are by vineyards.
Apparently, the applicable laws have barely been enforced, if not just completely ignored. Such diversions of water can mean that downstream areas dry up during the summer, killing fish and wildlife. … “
Continue reading from the Independent Voter Network by clicking here.
Thursday’s top of the scroll: State Water Resources Control Board convenes hearing on Cease and Desist Order regarding the validity of pre-1914 and riparian water rights in the Delta
Posted by: Maven on May 13, 2010 at 8:50 amFrom Somach Simmons & Dunn:
“On May 5, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board ( “State Water Board\” or “Board\”) began formal enforcement proceedings to determine the validity of pre-1914 and riparian water rights claimed by several landowners in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ( “Delta\”). The Central Delta Water Agency and South Delta Water Agency filed suit against the State Water Board to prevent the Board from engaging in such enforcement proceedings, arguing that the State Water Board lacks authority to determine the validity of pre-1914 and riparian rights in enforcement proceedings. Ultimately, those efforts failed. The State Water Board's decision could have significant precedential effects.
Background
In early 2009, the State Water Board requested that several property owners in the Delta submit evidence establishing their riparian and pre-1914 water rights. The State Water Board alleged that the properties at issue had no continuity to a surface stream, negating such properties' claims as riparian, and no evidence of perfected pre-1914 rights or continuous beneficial use of water since 1914. On December 14, 2009, after the subject property owners responded to the State Water Board's request by submitting evidence to substantiate their claimed water rights, the State Water Board issued a draft cease and desist order ( “CDO\”) alleging violations of the Water Code for unauthorized appropriation of water, and set a hearing date for May 5, 2010. … “
Continue reading from Somach Simmons & Dunn by clicking here.
Western Water Magazine: Whose water is it? Area of Origin water rights
Posted by: Maven on May 13, 2010 at 8:46 am
In this month’s issue of the Water Education Foundation’s Western Water Magazine:
“”Let me state, clearly and finally, the Interior Department is fully and completely committed to the policy that no water which is needed in the Sacramento Valley will be sent out of it. There is no intent on the part of the Bureau of Reclamation ever to divert from the Sacramento Valley a single acre-foot of water which might be used in the valley now or later.” – J.A. Krug, Secretary of the Interior, Oct. 12, 1948, speech at Oroville, CA
More than 60 years after Secretary Krug’s speech, the conflict over water has intensified after users in the north state filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) that alleges a breach of a decades-old promise to fulfill water needs locally before exporting supplies to drier regions beyond the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Reclamation “persists in exporting CVP [Central Valley Project] water supplies from the Sacramento River watershed … to the San Joaquin Valley without regard for beneficial needs in the \”¦ watershed that federal and state laws require,” states the lawsuit, filed by the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA) Feb. 11 in U.S. District Court.
Whether the lawsuit results in a change in who gets how much water remains to be seen but the legal claims brought by TCCA have raised eyebrows and rekindled the argument about water rights and those that depend upon the CVP for their economic stability. Water lawyers are buzzing about the case, offer ¬ing interpretations about the potential significance of the case and what it could mean for water users in Northern California and beyond. … “
Continue reading this excerpt from Western Water Magazine by clicking here.
North state lawsuit a major onslaught in war over water
Posted by: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
Continue reading “Martin Zehr commentary: California’s water use, water rights and diversions” »
Aguanomics blog: Huffman & his position on property rights for water
Posted by: 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: 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: 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: 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.
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 | 30 | 31 | ||
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