Good Neighbors – All Water Rights

Do Something Wrong, Instead Of Nothing Right

Do something wrong, rather than nothing at all. Have you ever heard that before? I have heard it from Army veterans, a boss, even an elder of a church. George Patton said, “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” A non-military way to say that is, “A poor plan now is better than no plan at all.”

What it means to you and me is, if action is necessary, do something, maybe ANYthing, rather than freezing in place or ignoring a problem. This is obvious when you see a tornado 5 miles away, for example; either drive away from it if you are in a car, or take shelter if you are on foot. If you have a plumbing leak in the house and no parts to replace broken pipe, then put a bucket under it, or turn off the valve, and call a plumber. All of us have seen a TV show (or maybe had it happen to us) where the bad guy pointed a rifle and said, “Don’t move”. What do we all say to the TV? “Don’t just stand there, run!”. Doing nothing is a much worse choice, if the result for freezing in place is death or injury.

What about water rights – how does doing something wrong help? Everyone knows by now that surface water diverters need measurement devices, so put in a weir box and boards and measure your flow before the threats come from the Water Board, your watermaster, your ditch tender, or your neighbor. Even just stick horizontal boards in a ditch and seal the sides with plastic – something to take positive action to reduce future pain.

Remember to file the information for the measurement device with the Water Board, either via your annual report of diversions, or using the Water Right Form and Survey Submittal Portal.

Take a look at the blog posts below. There is enough information and how-to directions, that you should be able to do it well enough to satisfy the Water Board. Check out these posts:

There is a philosophy based in law and a lot of experience, that says don’t put any controls on yourself until the court or government makes

you. Why remodel your house to accommodate the wiring or plumbing, if you aren’t selling the house and everything works okay right now? Who would put a lot of money into an old truck to make it pass smog, if it just might pass a smog check the next time it has to be done? What farmer would change how he irrigates or ranches if everything still operates and the bank will keep making operating loans?

All of the Water Board deadlines have passed to install measurement devices, or file Alternative Compliance Plans. If you haven’t got your device or plan done yet, get a Request For Additional Time done as soon as possible.

Be proactive. Take some inexpensive, temporary action. Educate yourself for free with some time in the Internet. Even a small, less-than-perfect improvement in your measurement device, flow and water use record keeping, can pay back a lot more when you have to deal with potential Water Board fines, a court case, or even just an angry neighbor in the future.

How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right

Back in 2005, Arnold and Eileen Williamson bought property near South Cow Creek in Shasta County. They live in San Bernardino and plan to retire early, and build a new house on their land. The parcel is part of an old ranch just off Highway 44.

The Williamsons paid $220,000 for the 3.55 acre lot. That seemed high compared to similar parcels in the area, but they were assured the land has adjudicated water rights from South Cow Creek.

Arnold and Eileen brought their travel trailer to live on the land while they are building a new house. Their savings account is in good shape so they are going to build a nice 2,200 square foot, single story ranch house with a garage and a shop. They talked to a well driller 10 years ago and he assured them it would be easy to put in a well, for a cost of around $18,000.

When Arnold and Eileen went to get a permit to drill a well, they ran into unexpected problems. Parcels on either side have their septic systems close to the common property lines, so their possible well locations are few. Maybe a bigger issue is the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014. Will their pumping rate be limited, and will their well-drilling permit application get held up?

Now the Williamsons are checking into their surface water right. Is it enough for some pasture for horses and a few cows, in addition to the house and garden? The Turings who live on the east side say there are no water rights. The Poulans, to the west, say they have lived here for 6 years and they have never had water – they think the water right was bought off the place, or lost because of non-use. Now the Williamsons are upset and headed toward just plain mad. The real estate agent said they had rights, and didn’t the title companies insure it?? After a few frantic calls, they found out that title companies don’t insure water rights. But, their realtor gave them the number of some folks over on the north side of the highway, and they have a “decree map”. Arnold and Eileen head over to the Winters’ place to look over the maps. Brad and Jenny Winters even have a web address where the decree and maps can be downloaded: https://allwaterrights.com/some-decrees-maps/ The Water Board’s web page has the decree, but no maps: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/judgments/docs/cowcreek_jd.pdf.

It turns out that the Cow Creek adjudication does not have maps, but an engineering report done a few years before the decree was issued does have the maps. Brad and Jenny have that report, too, so they have Sheets 1 through 5 showing the “Diversions And Irrigated Lands” on Cow Creek. Besides that, they have the link to where they can get the South Cow Creek decree, and a link to a blog that has the maps not on the Water Board’s web site: https://allwaterrights.com/some-decrees-maps/ Sheet 5 covers the area including the Winters and Williamson places. Sheet 5 has a lot of “irrigated lands” according to the legend – the green areas.

By looking at the maps, and their Assessor Parcel Map they have in their escrow package, it sure looks like their property is completely within the green area. Great! Now, how do they figure out if they actually have a water right?

Arnold and Eileen wonder, can they figure this out themselves? Brad and Jenny tell them, they sure can, and there is a document online that explains how to do it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8G8oUBnppMTdU1lbUotUDR4MlU/view. They take a look at it and see that, yes, the document fully explains the process, but it requires having either AutoCAD or GIS software. Also, it will take deep familiarity with the decree – and it is starting to look like a 3-day job just to understand it enough for their parcel! Arnold and Eileen don’t have the software or experience, so they decide it’s not worth their time to learn this…and they are not sure if they can do it right.

After asking around, Arnold and Eileen figure out they will need to see an attorney. They call around and find out there are a couple of engineering companies that can see them faster, and they might cost less. They picked Rights To Water Engineering, Inc., to help figure out their water rights. Within a couple of weeks, they have a nice report in their hands and answers to their questions. So what did they find out? The map below is one of several from the report they got from the engineer, showing their property boundary on the 1965 decree map of irrigated lands:

The report cost $2,500. The engineer warns them that if it gets contentious and they can’t work out access to the water with their neighbors, they may end up having to get legal help. He recommends a couple of local water rights attorneys if it comes to that – there are some good lawyers who specialize in in water rights. For now, though, they have documentation they can discuss with their neighbors to work on getting their water right to their property.

Their property is on land that back in 1968 belonged to Howard and Gladys Leggett. It has an adjudicated second priority water right for irrigation equal to 0.063 cubic feet per second, or 28.5 gallons per minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from March through October. This 2nd priority right is less than the second and third priorities on the upper creek and tributaries, but it is the highest irrigation priority on the lower creek. Back when the property was flooded, that was usually enough to flood irrigate their entire lot to grow pasture or hay. That’s great news!

As natural flows drop during the summer that amount is reduced and everyone with a lower creek second priority has to reduce their diversion by the same percentage. In normal and wet years they could keep their pasture, hay, or whatever else they plant, irrigated for most or all of the irrigation season. And whether or not they use the water, the right does stay with the land and protect their property value; there is no provision for the expiration of water rights in the decree (the same as for nearly all surface water rights decrees).

What else was in their report? There was a cover letter, and next some excerpts from the decree. Schedule 1 lists the places of use for all the original owners. The Leggetts’ description takes up most of page 60; the Williamson’s property is on the 69.8 acres listed in the second paragraph for the Leggett land:

Schedule 2 lists all the points of diversion, whether gravity diversions or pumps. The Leggett property actually could get water from two diversions, a pump from the creek, and a proposed second, movable diversion on the creek. That’s convenient – per the decree they could already divert their water from someone else’s existing diversion, or pump their water from Diversion 95, or they could get it from anywhere they can get agreement from the landowner!

Schedule 6 lists the water rights for Lower Cow Creek – other schedules have rights for the upper creek and tributaries. This is interesting: there are four priorities of rights and this part of the Leggetts’ property has

a 1st and a 2nd priority right. What does that mean exactly? The decree explains that 1st priority rights are domestic – houses and gardens. It’s a very small right and it is not clear whether or how it should be divided up among the all the subdivided parcels that used to be the Leggett ranch. The engineer noted it in the cover letter.

How was the water right calculated for the Williamsons? Using a geographic information system, or GIS, the engineer used his training and years of experience to precisely overlay the Assessor Parcel Map on the decree map. Then he measured the acreage for both, and prorated the water right by area. The following screenshots of the Excel spreadsheet shows these calculations.

Time to fess up: this was a water right subdivision of a fictitious, made-up parcel of land, and the Williamsons don’t actually own it. However, this story is one that happens every day, when a landowner asks “How much is my water right, really? Can I divert for hay, stock, pasture, wildlife habitat, crops not mentioned in the decree, an orchard, ……… ?” Having information before arguing with neighbors, seeing attorneys, sending legal letters, and going to court, can help smart people who generally have good relationships work out happy and agreeable solutions. The Williamsons were smart and talked politely with their neighbors, the Turings and Poulens and Winters’s. Now they have a good basis to live peacefully in their neighborhood for many years, and Arnold can borrow Charlie’s lawnmower until he gets his own.

Waste Water, or Get Cash For Excess?

Market part of your water, as a lease or sale, or divert it all and don’t risk losing your water right? That’s the question for thousands of Sacramento Basin smaller districts and individual diverters of even large water rights. The market for water can bring the water right holder $25 – $1,000 per acre-foot, depending on whether the buyer is a nearby neighbor or a San Joaquin Valley water district in a dry year.

When I was a DWR bureaucrat, my supervisor was experienced and wise. When he would talk to people at public meetings, or to neighbors who knew he was in the water world, sooner or later the subject of “sending all our water to Southern California” came up. His reply was, “You’re right, Feather River water is going to L.A., Sacramento River water is going to the San Joaquin Valley, and the excess of both goes through the Delta out to the Pacific Ocean. And you know what? Gravity does the job, not the government. If you want to keep water in Northern California, there have to be more dams.” Some folks understood and changed their minds, others kept on complaining.

There are more reservoirs in the Sacramento Basin. They aren’t made of concrete, they don’t do flood control, and they’re not run by the state or federal governments. These reservoirs are the water evaporated, infiltrated, leaked, returned unused to the stream, or wasted at the diversions of many individuals, and some water and irrigation districts. Some of the excess water makes it back to streams, and some of it goes to the next diverter down the stream, but much is lost in the short term and unavailable for use by humans or the environment.

Yes, many surface water flood systems were designed this way, so runoff from one irrigator goes into the canal to the next. However, more flooded pastures are being leveled or converted to pivots to grow hay. Many other pastures are becoming orchards, with tight controls on incoming e coli from cattle or unwanted pesticides or herbicides. There is a huge opportunity to increase efficiency (pipe, sprinklers, etc), maintain better water quality.

How can anyone get a yield, or excess water out of those reservoirs? Lining ditches, converting to sprinkler instead of flood irrigation, changing the land use to a crop that has both higher value to the owner, and lower water use.

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing that this excess water exists. In fact, it has the potential to do a lot of good, both for the upstream district, and for fisheries, and for other environmental needs, and for water users downstream or south of the Delta who don’t have enough water.

What is the good for the district or individual who is selling or leasing the water? Well, there is water not being directly used by stock, or being applied to crops, or directly needed for groundwater recharge. If some of that water can be saved, it can remain in the stream and used for all the other needs. Agricultural, urban, and environmental water users will pay for the saved water. That water can also bring in a lot of cash, that can be used for further farm or ranch efficiency, general improvements, or cash to keep in the bank.

Why don’t more irrigators with excess water market it? The number one reason is fear that somehow, California or the Feds will eventually take away the water right. That is a concern, but there are a bunch of people selling water right now who will tell you that their water right is still rock solid. The second reason is that we have always irrigated this way, so why should we change? Both the fear of loss and the unwillingness to change can be overcome with just a little bit of self-education. Plenty of folks have overcome their lack of knowledge to put together some valuable water deals.

Lately, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SGMA, is throwing in a lot of uncertainty. It’s true that radically changing diversion practices might change groundwater recharge, so that pumped water is not fully replenished. So, put together a small deal and see how that goes. Call it a trial for one or a few years. That will provide data on what the groundwater changes were due to the water deal.

What about those folks in the San Joaquin Valley who really need the water, badly? There is an element of taking care of our neighbor, and it ought to be part of the consideration. Who is our neighbor? Anyone that we can or do benefit.

There is a lot of opportunity out there, folks.

The Complaint Box

Have you ever used an old-style complaint box? It made us feel better to write out a grievance, and then put it in the special box for that purpose. Often, there would be no response, so nobody knew if the complaint was read, or ignored, or some action taken but not communicated.

Now we air criticisms and accusations with much greater speed and efficiency. It’s called Email, generally directed to one or a few poeple, or the very public Twitter, FaceBook, Yelp, Foursquare, or 500 other online venues. This often isn’t better but it does get results! A thousand “Yeah me too”s, ten thousand “You’re an idiot”s, and a hundred thousand ugly troll comments. Have you successfully complained online and had a positive result? You’re in a small minority.

What if another water diverter on your ditch is taking all the water, or someone files a right for the water you have lawfully used for years, or the new neighbor bullies you and 4 others into not taking your water because he says he’ll file a lawsuit? Fortunately the Water Board has a way to complain about water rights. If you Google “Water Board Complaints”, the following page is usually the first result you’ll get:

Now what? You need to click the “CalEPAEnvironmental Complaint website” link, and then you’ll see the page to the right:

Click on the “Water” radio button, and click “Complaint Details at the bottom of the page.

This will take you to a series of web pages, shown here as the very long page shown on the left. The pages prompt for information, so enter all the details entered. What if you don’t know something? Put in the best information you have and move on to the next section.

What if you don’t want anyone to know who complained? You can file it anonymously. However, you can imagine that putting your John Henry on there would get a better response from the Water Board folks.

Once you do that, and hit “Submit”, you’re done. A web page will pop up with some information, and you’ll get a confirmation email:

Wonderful, your complaint is in the system! How long will it take for you to get a call or an email from someone at the Water Board? If your protest is about a large water right, in the Central Valley, and is well-documented, you may hear back in a month or two. What if your water right is small, you’re in Del Norte County, and you don’t have all the details? Well…it might be many months, and possibly never. Keep in mind, most Water Board staff have five times the workload than any of them can possibly do. Supervisors and staff have to pick and choose what they can work on that might result in an action, and which will have support from their supervisor or manager.

How can you best ensure that your complaint is addressed, and you get contacted by Water Board personnel? Document, document, document. Get right to the point of what you want the State employee to do. Speak bureaucrat. That’s a language similar to English, but which is much better understood by a state employee than standard English. I know, because I had to speak bureaucrat for 30 years! Now I speak bureaucrat to help solve diverters’ headaches to provide peace of mind, and help stay out of trouble.

How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right

This post is an old version and has been updated here: https://wordpress.com/post/allwaterrights.com/4949

The Williamsons paid $220,000 for the 3.55 acre lot. That seemed high compared to similar parcels in the area, but they were assured the land has adjudicated water rights from South Cow Creek.

Now the Williamsons are checking into their surface water right. Is it enough for some pasture for horses and a few cows, in addition to the house and garden? The Turings who live on the east side say there are no water rights. The Poulans, to the west, say they have lived here for 6 years and they have never had water – they think the water right was bought off the place, or lost because of non-use. Now the Williamsons are upset and headed toward just plain mad. The real estate agent said they had rights, and didn’t the title companies insure it?? After a few frantic calls, they found out that title companies don’t insure water rights. But, their realtor gave them the number of some folks over on the north side of the highway, and they have a “decree map”. Arnold and Eileen head over to the Winters’ place to look over the maps. Brad and Jenny Winters even have a web address where the decree and maps can be downloaded: https://allwaterrights.com/some-decrees-maps/ The Water Board’s web page has the decree, but no maps: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/judgments/docs/cowcreek_jd.pdf.

Arnold and Eileen wonder, can they figure this out themselves? Brad and Jenny tell them, they sure can, and there is a document online that explains how to do it: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Watermaster-Services/Files/Water-Rights-Reapportionment-Method.pdf. They take a look at it and see that, yes, the document fully explains the process, but it requires having either AutoCAD or GIS software. Also, it will take deep familiarity with the decree – and it is starting to look like a 3-day job just to understand it enough for their parcel! Arnold and Eileen don’t have the software or experience, so they decide it’s not worth their time to learn this…and they are not sure if they can do it right.

After asking around, Arnold and Eileen figure out they will need to see an attorney. They call around and find out there are a couple of engineering companies that can see them faster, and they might cost less. They picked Rights To Water Engineering to help figure out their water rights. Within a couple of weeks, they have a nice report in their hands and answers to their questions. So what did they find out? The map below is one of several from the report they got from the engineer, showing their property boundary on the 1965 decree map of irrigated lands:

The report cost $1,500. The engineer warns them that if it gets contentious and they can’t work out access to the water with their neighbors, they may end up having to get legal help. He recommends a couple of local water rights attorneys if it comes to that – there are some good lawyers who specialize in in water rights. For now, though, they have documentation they can discuss with their neighbors to work on getting their water right to their property.

Do Something Wrong, Instead Of Nothing Right

Ready-to-install 3-inch Montana Cutthroat Flume

Remember to file the information for the measurement device with the Water Board, either via your annual report of diversions, or using the Water Right Form and Survey Submittal Portal.

Take a look at the blog posts below. There is enough information and how-to directions, that you should be able to do it well enough to satisfy the Water Board. Check out these posts:

There is a philosophy based in law and a lot of experience, that says don’t put any controls on yourself until the court or government makes

Is John Stealing Water?? Orifices And Sum Of The Boxes

This is updated from a previous post, which was an example for a stream with adjudicated water rights. However, it also works for any stream where there are water rights with legally defined diversion quantities, if all the diverters have headgates in good condition and/or measurement devices such as weirs, flumes, and pipe meters.

Is John Stealing Water?? John Casey has a cattle ranch near Adin, where he grows pasture and hay to raise about 70 Angus steers. His ranch is 240 acres with lower irrigated land and forest on the higher part. He has an a licensed water right of 2.00 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Preacher Creek, to irrigate 80 acres, from April 1 to November 1.

John’s downstream neighbors claim he steals water. He says he can show that he takes only 2 cfs, or less when the flow drops down in the summer. Can he prove it?

As we can see, he has a square headgate at the head of his ditch. It is 2.0′ wide, and can open up to 1.5′ high. Right now, John says he is diverting 1.05 cfs. His evidence is that his gate is open 0.15′, the water is 0.57′ deep on the upstream side, and the water is 0.20′ deep on the downstream side. Is that enough to check what he says?

The box in which the gate sits has smooth walls, and the gate closes flush with the bottom when John is not diverting. The water continues in a straight path from upstream to downstream. That means the weir has “suppressed” sides.

This is in contrast with, for example, a hole cut in the middle of a 2″ x 12″ weir board. The water on the sides has to make the turn to go straight through, so the hole in the board is an example of a “contracted” orifice.

Let’s look at the tables for orifices in the back of the Water Measurement Manual. Table A9-3 is for submerged, suppressed weirs.

We can’t see the downstream side of the weir, but the water is above the bottom of the edge of the gate, so it is submerged rather than free-flowing.

This table has flows calculated for a minimum area of 2.0 square feet (sq. ft.). However, the area of the opening at John’s headgate is 2.0′ wide x 0.15′ high, or 0.30 sq. ft. Fortunately, the equation, Q=0.70A(2g Δh)^0.5, is listed right at the top of the table. We can calculate the flow using that. Q is the flow in cfs, A is the area of the orifice hole, g = the acceleration due to gravity, or 32.2 ft/second^2 (feet per second squared), and Δh is the difference between the upstream and downstream water depth.

So the flow Q = 0.70 x (2.0′ x 0.30′) x (2 x 32.2 x 0.37′)^0.5 = 1.03 cfs. So far so good – John is taking 52%, or just over half of his right when 100 percent of flows are available. But, how much flow is actually available right now?

Let’s use the “sum of the boxes” method. Instead of measuring the amount of water in Preacher Creek at the top, before any diversions, and then estimating how much flow is being lost to evaporation, transpiration, and infiltration, and then estimating how much flow is subsurface above John Casey’s ranch and “pops up” out of the ground below, we’ll look at what each diversion amount is, plus the amount still in the creek after the last diversion. This is very useful because none of the instream losses have to be estimated – we just add the diversions and flow still in the creek, and that amount IS the available supply.

Water Board Permits and Licenses are usually not interrelated – they specify water rights without considering the other water rights on the stream. This is different from adjudicated streams, whether done by the Water Board or the Department of Water Resources. Some Superior Court judges in past decades were pretty smart and actually ordered that available flows be calculated by the sum of the boxes:

The paragraph above, from the Susan River Decree, defines available water supply as what is being diverted, plus the flow passing the last diversion.

There are 4 diversions on Preacher Creek, and here are the amounts being diverted:

Diversion 1 (John Casey) 1.03 cfs of a 1.60 cfs water right, 52% of his total right
Diversion 2 (Amy Hoss) 1.67 cfs of a 3.80 cfs water right, 44% of her total right
Diversion 3 (Mark and Cindy Sample) 0.55 cfs of a 0.88 cfs water right, 62% of their total right
Diversion 4 (Quint and Marcie Minks) 1.32 cfs of a 2.50 cfs water right, 53% of his total right
Flow still in the creek past the Minks Diverison – Quint estimates about 0.7 cfs

The total diversion-plus-bypass flow is about 5.3 cfs. The total rights on the creek are 9.48 cfs. Therefore, the total available flow = 5.3 / 9.48 = 56%.

So, John is right, he is not stealing water! He is taking 52% of his water right, when he could be taking 56% according to the “sum of the boxes” method. Not only that, but Amy could take more, the Samples should reduce their diversion, and the Minks’s could take a tad more. Well, that’s theoretical – Quint and Marcie Minks probably cannot seal up their dam completely, so there may be a little bit less flow actually available for diversion.

[Update/Repost] Do Something Wrong, Instead Of Nothing!

Do something wrong, rather than nothing at all. Have you ever heard that before? I have heard it from Army veteran friends, a boss, even an elder of a church.

What it means to you and me is, if action is necessary, do something, maybe ANYthing, rather than freezing in place or ignoring a problem. This is obvious when you see a tornado 5 miles away, for example; either drive away from it if you are in a car, or take shelter if you are on foot. If you have a plumbing leak in the house and no parts to replace broken pipe, then put a bucket under it, or turn off the valve, and call a plumber. All of us have seen a TV show (or maybe had it happen to us) where a bad guy or an enemy pointed a rifle and said, “Don’t move.”. What do we all say to the TV? “Don’t just stand there, run!”. Doing nothing is a much worse choice!

What about water rights – how does doing something wrong help? Everyone knows by now that surface water diverters need measurement devices, so put in a weir box and boards and try to measure flow if the Water Board, your watermaster, or your neighbor is promising painful consequences. Even stick boards in a ditch and seal the sides with gravel – something to take positive action to reduce future pain.

Take a look at the blog posts here. There is enough information and how-to directions, that you might be able to do it right! Check out these posts:

There is a philosophy based in law and a lot of experience, that says don’t put any controls on yourself until the court or government makes you. Why remodel your house to accommodate the wiring or plumbing, if you aren’t selling the house and everything works okay? Who would put a lot of money into an old truck to make it pass smog, if it just might pass a smog check the next time it has to be done? What farmer would change how he irrigates or ranches if everything still operates and the bank will keep making operating loans?

Surface water and groundwater are getting 10 50 times the attention they were prior to 2009. If the Water Board, or California Fish and Wildlife, or any other agency comes along, do something, anything, to comply sooner, even if it’s not the ultimate solution. Two posts ago, bureaucrats were discussed – they are still human beings and most people appreciate some effort to “get with the program”.

Be proactive, take some inexpensive action, educate yourself for free with some time in the Internet. Even a small, less-than-perfect improvement in your measurement device, flow and water use record keeping, diversion practices, or acreening, can pay back a lot more when you have to deal with agencies, a court, or an angry neighbor in the future.

How Do Shared Ditch Users Comply With SB 88?

This is a summary of how water right holders who share a ditch comply with SB 88, and report correctly to the Water Board. So, why I am I using the Measurement Method Form Instructions below? Because, this has the best summary that I have seen, of how a shared ditch is measured and reported. In short:

every water right holder on a ditch has to sign onto the same form;
each person’s split, land use, and irrigated acreage must be reported;
the ditch manager and each person is responsible to report leaving the agreement – presumably this covers every property sale, too.

Excerpts from the Instructions:

“…Examples of Measurement Methods include: Multiple water right holders on a single surface supply may propose a collaborative measurement approach.

“…Attach maps, aerial photographs, or other renderings showing the area covered by the Method and delineating the acreage of each place of use served. For the area covered by the Method, include a list of assessor’s parcel numbers and the current owner of each parcel. Attachments can be uploaded in Section H of the online form.

“…A Measurement Method based on using a shared measuring device shall include the following information:

Description of the methodology used to apportion the volume of water delivered to each diverter covered by the Measurement Method.
Description of the field or flow condition at each diverter’s delivery point, including duration of or period of water delivery, annual water use patterns, irrigated acreage, crops planted, and on-farm irrigation system.
Description of the consumptive use of water for each individual diverter, if available….”

“…A Measurement Method based on using a shared measuring device shall be accompanied by a written agreement signed by each diverter covered by the Measurement Method.

“…Each participant in a Measurement Method plan must sign the form or an “opt-in” form which must be retained by the Measurement Method manager. (Attach an excel spreadsheet listing of participants, as needed). Each Measurement Method participant shall acknowledge that the method will substantially comply with the measurement and monitoring requirements.

“…Each Measurement Method participant is responsible for promptly informing the Division of Water Rights or the Delta Watermaster, as appropriate, if the participant withdraws from the Method. The Method manager is responsible for promptly informing the Division of Water Rights or the Delta Watermaster, as appropriate, if the Method is modified or abandoned….“

Rotation On 1 Farm; Between Diversions / Farms; And After Subdivision

This post is about individual water rights, not those that are distributed by a water district, irrigation district, water company, or other organization that can sell and assign shares of water. Side note: if your diversion is 100 AF to 1,000 AF per year, now (January-February) is a great time to get your measuring device installed and certified! Diversions of ~0.4 to 4 cfs take smaller devices – many can be installed between storms before the busy spring season. If you live on or farm a parcel that was subdivided from a ranch that had water rights, it will take you and your neighbors some planning and work to do to share the water equitably with your neighbors. This map shows multiple owners on land that used to belong to just one owner, H. Leggett, when the South Cow Creek Decree was issued by the Shasta County Superior Court in 1968.

Originally on the Leggett place, there wasn’t enough water to irrigate the whole ranch at one time. The water was rotated between one part and another. Maybe it took 10 days of turning the water into one field and then another, and after that there may be a to 10 day pause.

Rotation also took place by agreement or adjudication between several diverters. Below is shown the northwest part of Sheet 5 of the South Cow Creek Decree. The green areas show the decreed irrigated acreage mostly in the correct spots. You can see that the H. Leggett was neighbors with A. Otten to the north, E. Frisbie and X. Shuffelberger to the northeast, H. Fraley to the southwest…and these diverters may have rotated and combined diversions to get a slug of water to push over a whole field quickly. One may have had water for 5 days for a larger farm, another for 2 days for a smaller farm, and so on. The rotation would have repeated through the irrigation season, with the time periods usually staying the same. That way, as natural flows decreased through the irrigation season, everyone shared the loss because they each had the same percentage for the individual irrigations.

Shasta Co. Sup. Ct. South Cow Ck. Decree Sht. 5, NW part

There is another kind of rotation that happens as land is subdivided over time. An original 800-acre ranch may be split into 10 parcels today. If the ranch originally had 4 main ditches, many of the parcels today don’t touch a ditch. What’s the solution?

When a bunch of smaller, feeder ditches are put in, then most of the water will soak into the ground before it gets to the parcels it is supposed to irrigate. If instead, landowners agree to get water for, say, 40 parcels

sierra_vly_sht_5_sierraville_area-edited — Sierra Valley Revised Decree Map, Portion Around Sierraville

at a time, then a higher volume of water may be pushed across all of the properties before it is sent to the next group of landowners.

Of course, investment in infrastructure, such as lining or piping ditches, might
make water available to most of the people for most of the time. Rotation can be alleviated by more and better plumbing. The monetary cost is higher, sometimes much higher, but getting more water overall can be worth a lot. Not having to be home on all rotation days is worth something, too.

Hat Creek Shearin Tract, from August 2014 Revised Decree Map

What happens when a subdivision is built on what used to be a farm or ranch? In some cases, new owners have invested in pipelines to keep rotating the water between the smaller parcels, or supply all parcels at once if the pipelines increase efficiency enough. In other places, some new owners use water, others don’t, which is fine as long as a new owner doesn’t complain loudly. The map above is from the revised Hat Creek Decree map, showing one original ranch that subdivided into 60 + parcels. Some parcels get surface water from the ditch, other, newer owners have put in a few pumps and pipelines to ensure decreed water rights are available to smaller parcels today.

In still other locations, none of the new homeowners wanted to use the water, either because there was a built-in municipal supply of treated, safe water, or

Subdivision - Photo Credit: Pixabay — Subdivision – Photo Credit: Pixabay

because one or more wells were drilled. No water is diverted, so none is rotated. The existence of surface water rights probably was not advertised when the parcels were purchased, and once the new owners were built homes, it became too expensive to arrange pipelines across several neighbors’ properties to get a share of the surface water right.

In summary, rotation has been part of most farms and ranches since the beginning. Physical rotation of a water right on subdivided parcels takes forethought and planning. It is least expensive when new ditches or pipelines are installed before the new parcels are built out in houses and businesses.

What's Your Name?

Where Can We Email You?(required)

Do You Have A Website?

Please Leave A Comment!(required)

Δ

	Reasoning With Regul… on Use BING or DUCKDUCKGO To Sear…
	Do Something Wrong,… on Measure Any Flow With Watchman…
	Flow/Volume Data and… on Flow/Volume Data and Data-Head…
	No Record Of Water R… on Do Something Wrong, Instead Of…
	Reports Of Licensee/… on Do Something Wrong, Instead Of…