Types of Rights – Page 3 – All Water Rights

Can I lose my water right?

This is a question that comes up all over California, every day. It usually comes in one Headgate on stream of two ways:

I’m about to buy some land. Will I have a water right if the previous owner did not use it for X years ?
My neighbor hasn’t used his right in X years. He lost it, so I can use it, right?

The short answer is yes, an appropriative, post-1914 water right can be lost. Court-decreed water rights, riparian rights, and pre-1914 are major exceptions, usually – we’ll discuss those cases later in the post. What most people are thinking of is the provision from WATER CODE SECTION 1240-1244:

1241.  If the person entitled to the use of water fails to use beneficially all or any part of the water claimed by him or her, for which a right of use has vested, for the purpose for which it was appropriated or adjudicated, for a period of five years, that unused water may revert to the public and shall, if reverted, be regarded as unappropriated public water. That reversion shall occur upon a finding by the board following notice to the permittee, licensee, or person holding a livestock stockpond certificate or small domestic use, small irrigation use, or livestock stockpond use registration under this part and a public hearing if requested by the permittee, licensee, certificate holder, or registration holder.

Diversion box to field “Board” means the State Water Resources Control Board. The emphasis on “may” and “if” is mine, and it is important. Loss of a water right under this provision is not automatic. It takes a complaint by someone to get it started, just as it takes a complaint for someone to get a water rights case heard by the judge of a Superior or Federal Court.

Then, if the water right holder protests that yes, he or she has diverted water during the last 5 years, it’s up to the complainant or the Board to prove that water was not diverted. This might be from yearly photos of the land in question (rare), testimony by several neighbors;, or a lack of records from the water right holder, showing that there was indeed pasture with cattle, or hay, or some other beneficial use; or some other evidence.

Let’s consider riparian rights and then put that discussion aside. A riparian water right cannot be lost for non-use, since it is established by the Constitution of the State of California. Riparian rights are not being considered here.

How does someone know that their water right may be on the chopping block? They will have already had phone calls and probably visits from Board staff. There should be no surprise at this point. Then, the Board will send a letter that starts something like this:

There is an opportunity to dispute the assertions in the letter, and a water right holder can request a hearing (or hearings) before the Board. If the alleged non-use is not a watertight case, the process can take a year or longer.

What if the water is a pre-1914 water right? Can it be lost? The answer used to be a fairly solid “no”, but the Board’s authority has increased in recent years. It is harder to lose a pre-1914 right but the best defense is having used it at least once in the past five years, and having some proof it was used.

Diversion box from diversion

What if the water right is part of a State Superior Court or Federal District Court decree* or adjudication? Interestingly, very few decrees have ANY provision for expiration of water rights. In addition, courts usually maintain jurisdiction of these cases, so that any following petitions or lawsuits over decreed water rights must go back to court. In essence, this makes decreed rights “eternal” or permanent, unless the rights are changed in a subsequent lawsuit. *Statutory adjudications where the Board issued an Order of Determination, and then took it to the Superior Court to be adjudicated, might be easier for the Board to bring before the court for a revocation action.

What does the Water Board think about that? Board staff assert that they have “concurrent authority” with State Superior Courts. That means they have equal power over water rights.

Some at the Board say they have authority over the same water rights that the court does. Is that true?

Let’s say that it is true. Has the Board ever asserted its authority over decreed water rights in court? The last few times I asked Board staff, the answer was

“no”. So it may be true, but as far as I have heard, it has not been tested. So, no, decreed rights cannot be revoked by the Board without going to court.

Summarizing the subject of losing post-1914 appropriative water rights for five years of non-use, then, they can be lost if the water right holder admits it, or if there is good evidence that water has not been used. Pre-1914 rights are harder to lose but it can happen. The Board cannot revoke riparian rights because they are defined in the State Constitution. Court-decreed rights cannot be revoked by the Board without going to the court with a petition or as part of a lawsuit.

Water Rights Review, And What Are They Worth?

This is a review of what kinds of water rights we have in California, discussed here some months back in Water Rights – Why Do They Exist? Which Kinds Are There? As a water right holder, you are really interested in what kind of right you have. Knowing what other water rights are is sort of academic, interesting but not necessary for day-to-day operations and the success of your farming or ranching business.

Even so, when the water supply is scarce you need to know what your neighbors’ water rights are both upstream and downstream of you. We’re putting aside the issue of someone stealing water, and conflicts over diversion amounts. Deferring the possibility of arguments, do they have a higher priority or seniority, compared to your water right? Do other diverters have riparian rights, which would be senior to an appropriative water right? The previous post in this blog is a good way to understand various surface water rights. It’s always helpful to read another description in someone else’s words , and here is a really good list from Sandy Denn at the Family Water Alliance: http://familywateralliance.com/water-rights-revisited/

The article has a brief and very handy description of beneficial use that is easy to remember:

“STATE CODE AND BENEFICIAL USE
The California water code was adopted in 1914. Since that time, water rights have evolved through many and varied decisions of case law and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) actions which can carry the weight of law. A water right in California is a property right. For certain purposes, the right is treated as a real property right, yet for other purposes, it is purely usufructuary (i.e., a right to use). To preserve the right to use water, a beneficial use must be shown. Article X Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that the general welfare of the state requires that its water resources be put to beneficial use. In 1928, the voters of California approved a Constitutional amendment mandating that all waters in the state be “put to beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they are capable and that waste or unreasonable use of water be prevented…”

The kind and quantity of water right you have also affects the value of your land. Sometimes, land with a good water right can be worth more than double the price per acre of an adjacent parcel with no surface water right. In other locations, groundwater is used by most irrigators and surface water rights have less impact on the land value. You may be interested in selling your property or buying someone else’s, so where can you find good information on how to value your water right? This is what appraisers do, and the Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute has a very good presentation on what goes into valuation: http://www.norcal-ai.org/amass/doc-get-pub/article/252/Water_Rights_021010.pdf

This slide show also includes a discussion of highest and best use. Water used for irrigation usually does not have to be used for the highest possible value or income, but it can be profitable to know what value the water could have. This information is also good to have in your pocket if you face the issue of some or all of the land being taken by eminent domain, or by a mandated change of use , such as taking by the state or federal government for environmental benefit. Here is one very useful quote from the presentation:

“…

Highest Highest and Best Use Analysis Analysis
If the value of the water right on the open market is worth more than its contributing value to the larger parcel under its existi ng use, then maximum value is attained by selling the water right separately.
 Example ‐ sell the appropriative water right for a beneficial use and convert the land to dry land grazing

…”

If you have any questions or comments, please comment here or contact me at RightsToWaterEng1@gmail.com. It’s sprinkling here right now, and I hope that 2016 is a good water year for you.

Water Management (Sharing Shortages) In California In the Short and Long Term, Part 2

Continuing from Part 1, why would a groundwater shortage in San Diego affect how much a surface water diverter in Modoc County could use…rather, how much the diverter has to reduce his use? Where does all groundwater come from? Surface water flowing in streams, accumulating in meadows, ponds, and lakes replenishes groundwater, whether it takes a year, 3 years, or 20 years.
Rainfall infiltrates (soaks in) until the soil has no more capacity, and then runs off. Groundwater is directly connected to, and depends on the amount of surface water.

In 2009, just 7 years ago, the California Legislature passed and the Governor signed Senate Bills 1, 6, 7, and 8. These new laws required:

For the first time ever, statewide groundwater monitoring
Statewide water conservation plans, and integrated management of surface water
Increased surface water reporting, and greatly increased reporting to, fines by, and enforcement from the State Water Resources Control Board
Increased Delta governance

In 2013, 4 short years later, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act passed. This is a gigantic change in state groundwater laws – 515 groundwater basins in California are now prioritized based on overdraft, increased groundwater pumping, and falling groundwater levels; or conversely, the health of groundwater basins – some are hardly even touched. On this map, now everybody can see what was nearly invisible 2 years ago – the state of our groundwater basins.

About 2/3 of California’s water falls in the northern 1/3 of the State. However, most of the good agricultural land, as well as most of its population, is in that drier 2/3 of the State.

Back to San Diego potentially affecting how much water can be diverted in Modoc County…does San Diego even have a groundwater basin? Yes it does, along the Sweetwater River. Of course this isn’t hydrologically connected to drainage from the Pit River in Modoc County; the Pit River ultimately enters the Pacific Ocean in the Sacramento River-San Joaquin River Delta, and the Sweetwater enters the ocean on the shores of the City of San Diego.

Think about it: 7 short years ago, groundwater was mostly a mystery to 90% of folks, and surface water management was hardly “integrated”, except for the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), State Water Project (SWP), and some relatively small projects. 20 years from now? Heck, that’s 2036; I’ll bet that, just continuing the –> trajectory –> of legislation that started in 2009, by 2030 (14 years from now), surface water and groundwater will be so connected and co-managed, that shortages in San Diego will require diversions to be reduced from where the water is in those northernmost Counties contributing to the Sacramento River drainage: Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta, part of Lassen, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, and Plumas. I put in print so we can check my prognostications down the road. You heard it here first!

Maybe that sounds paranoid or protective. It’s not, I would think the same whether I lived in Crescent City, San Francisco, Susanville, Oroville, Bakersfield, or San Dimas. After all, who would have thought in 2007 or 2008, that we would be integrating surface water use, looking at groundwater maps in syndicated newspapers, hearing of possible fines of $25,000 for misreporting surface water diversion in the middle of nowhere…?

That’s all for now, by the end of the week we’ll be back to discussing the many aspects of the diversion of surface water. Have a good night, everybody.

Water Management (Sharing Shortages) In California In the Short and Long Term, Part 1

san_diego_sdskyline14_sm California surface water and groundwater laws are increasing controls rapidly, and the changes aren’t over yet. The end result will like creek_through_meadow_small ly be that shortages in San Diego will reduce how much a license holder in Modoc County can take. It will probably take 20 years for the full effect…but 20 years is a lot faster than it used to be for farmers, ranchers, cities, and the environment.

How does this work? It is harder to see from the surface water side. How are the two ends of the State even connected, hydrologically? Some diverters up around Alturas divert from the Pit River, which flows into Shasta Lake on the Sacramento River, which flows to the Delta, from which water is pumped by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Actually, DWR diverts water released from Lake Oroville on the Feather River, but that water joins the Sacramento River at Verona, before it gets to the Delta.

The federal water goes to the San Joaquin Valley, which is the southern end of the Great Central Valley and salad bowl of California. The USBR Central Valley Project (CVP) coordinates to some extent with the California State Water Project (SWP).

The state water goes partly to the San Joaquin Valley, and mostly over the Tehachapi Range to the Los Angeles Basin. Where the water goes from the CVP and SWP is carefully controlled by water rights and contracts.

wiki_800px-Well_spudder_8606

What we don’t see with our own eyes is the groundwater picture. Groundwater pumping has dramatically increased during the last few years of drought, as news articles have made clear. Nobody’s groundwater rights are affected by the new groundwater laws, but every groundwater basin either has or will soon have a local management agency of some type. Maps of groundwater shortages will be in news articles, online, and where every citizen of California can see them. This is part 1 of a several-part post on how in the world, or in this case the state, groundwater shortages in the extreme South will affect surface water diversions way up in the North.

Summary of Water Rights, Flow Measurement Posts So Far

There have been 25 posts so far, on the types of California surface water rights, flow measurement devices, and how to measure diverted flows. You’ll see new posts once or twice a week. Please send suggestions for post topics! We have discussed:

All Water Rights, California
Read Me My Rights (How do you know if you have a water right?)
Reasonable And Beneficial Use Depends On Who You Are
The Smartest Water Expert In California (Chuck Rich)
Riparian Rules by Chuck Rich
Water Rights – Why Do They Exist? Which Kinds Are There?
Water Rights And Engineers
California Water Right Holders Now Required To Have Measuring Device
What Is Your Place Of Use? (Where can you legally use your right?)
Places Of Use – Adjudicated (Decreed) In The State Superior Court
A Place For Permits And Licenses (Places of Use)
Nothing Secret About It (This is all public information.)
Quick Change of Subjects: What’s a Water Right Permit Cost?
Life Of Reilly: If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Manage It!
How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right – Part 1
How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right – Part 2
Weirs – Planning, Building, Measuring Flows
From weir to orifice in only an hour
Chilean Water Rights at (darn near) the Driest Place on Earth
Some Hope in Rain and Snow Totals
Is John Stealing Water?? Orifices – Right Size and How to Measure
Worried about SB 88? That’s what this blog is for! Get a device in, send a photo to the Board, record and report your diversions
Flumes – installing for decades of flow measurement, Part 1
Simple Weirs and Orifices, on video, and in photos!
Diverters must report weekly, daily, or HOURLY starting 2017!

Is John Stealing Water?? Orifices – Right Size and How to Measure

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 place is 240 acres with lower irrigated land and forest on the higher part. He has an adjudicated water right of 2.00 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Preacher Creek, to irrigate 80 acres.

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? John_Headgate_edit

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. WMM_Table_A9-3_suppressed

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. Some Superior Court judges in past decades were pretty smart and actually ordered that available flows be calculated this way.

Susan_1_of_2_DecreeParaAvailWaterEqualsDiversions Susan_2_of_2_DecreeParaAvailWaterEqualsDiversions 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.

Chilean Water Rights at (darn near) the Driest Place on Earth

California seems like a big place to me – I live here. However, to cover the land surface of earth would take 400 Californias. There are other places of interest on this celestial ball, like Chile. What’s amazing about Chile? The following information comes from various sources and I have not fact-checked it all:

1/3 of all the copper in the world is mined here.
Easter Island and its amazing, huge head statues are part of the country.
It is a very secure country for residents and tourists.
It’s in the Southern Hemisphere (I hope that wasn’t a surprise!)
The world’s smallest deer, the pudú, is from there.
The people are extraordinarily friendly to visitors.
It has the driest “non-polar” desert in the world. Drier than Death Valley in California?? Yup, it is: The Atacama Desert in Chile gets 1/25 (0.04″) of an inch of rain per YEAR on average.

It is that last fact, about the Atacama Desert, that makes an amazing story about water rights. Amazing to me, and hopefully to you, too.

Map of Chile map_of_chile[1]

In March of 2015, there were very unusual, heavy rains in the desert, and sadly, over 100 people were killed. Several cities were hit with floods, including the place of interest for this post, the City of Copiapó.

Atacama Desert, by Evelyn Pfeiffer

The ongoing, increasing problem is not floods, but lack of water. Of course generations of Chileans have learned to live with that so they have water year-round. However, recent increases in copper mining have required proportional increases in the use of water as part of the mining process. (My mining expert friend Mark can correct me here if needed).

Ironically, in 1981, Augusto Pinochet, the formidable dictator, changed the water code so the government has much LESS control, so water rights are much more free market. Not only can mining companies pay much more, up to $750,000 per acre-foot according to Copiapó city officials, but they can use water than runs on their own properties for free. [An acre-foot is 43,560 cubic feet of water, or 325,851 gallons – 326,000 gallons near enough, and the amount used by 1 or 2 families per year.] Given that mining companies have bought a significant chunk of farm land with water rights, that gives the companies the lion’s share. The increased pumping and new city wells are pulling in more brackish or salty water, at the same time that there is much less water available.

City of Copiapó, Chile Copiapó_atardecer_de_Otoño (1)

In California, city residents might pay up to $4,000 per acre-foot of water, roughly speaking. I know I’ll get corrected by more than a few people on that. The highest-profit agriculture might pay up to $1,500 per acre-foot of water. San Diego’s desalination plant that is being built right now, is expected to cost residents maybe $1,200 per acre-foot of use.

Thankfully, our State’s founders wrote us a good Constitution; it specifies that all water must be used reasonably and beneficially. Human health and safety are the highest priorities. Somehow, some way, water gets to 99.99% of people even in a severe drought. In addition, California is one of the great breadbaskets of the world, even in a severe drought. Folks, we are blessed in the State of California! Go see some of the rest of the world, and it will increase your appreciation of our abundance of water, and even thankfulness for our confusing, multi-basis, and to some people “oudated”, water rights system in California.

Dunes of the Atacama, by Evelyn Pfeiffer

The photo above could be of the Anzo-Borrego desert in southeastern California, but it’s from the whole lot drier Atacama Desert in Chile.

How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right – Part 2

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

…continued from yesterday’s Part 1…. To recap, in 2005, San Bernardinoans Arnold and Eileen Williamson bought property near South Cow Creek up in Northern California to retire on and build a new house. They were set on drilling a new well and uncertainties in how much they could pump got them looking into their surface water right – do they have one for sure, and how much water is it? They ended up taking their questions to an engineer who could answer their questions. 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: Ex_2_Williamson_Parcel_Outline_on_DecreeMap_reduced

The report cost $350. They’re pretty sure they would have paid a lot more than that to see an attorney. 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 Jeff Swanson if it comes to that – he’s an expert water rights laywer in Redding. 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.

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:

SCow_Sched1_Leggett_Places_Of_Use

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! SCow_Sched2_Leggett_Points_Of_Diversion

SCow_Sched2_Leggett_Points_Of_Diversion_2

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

SCow_Sched6_LowerSCC_Leggett_Allots_second_page

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.

TractMgmtSheet_20151222_Arial_12_01_reduced

TractMgmtSheet_20151222_Arial_12_02_reduced

TractMgmtSheet_20151222_Arial_12_03_reduced

Time to fess up: this was a water right subdivision of a 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?” 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.

Ex_2_Williamson_Parcel_Outline_on_Aerial_reduced

How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right – Part 1

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

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. Williamson_Overview

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. Williamsons_and_neighbors 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 the Internet address where the decree can be downloaded: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/judgments/docs/cowcreek_jd.pdf SCow_Sheet_5_screenshot

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. Sheet 5 covers the area including the Winters and Williamson places. Sheet 5 has a lot of “irrigated lands” Leggett_Focus_Area 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?
AP_Map_59-98_cropped 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. An appointment with Rights To Water Engineering Ex_2_Williamson_Parcel_Outline_on_DecreeMap_reduced the next morning is their next step. Within a couple of days, they have a nice report in their hands and answers to their questions. So what did they find out? That is an answer for the next post.

For now, good night to all….

Nothing Secret About It

A word on all the information discussed in this blog so far – it is all publicly available. It is not all on the Internet, but it can be obtained by going to the right office or court.

For example, the South Cow Decree is available from the Board’s website. That’s great! However, last I checked, the maps are not available online, so a call to the Board might get you a copy or more likely, scanned PDFs of the maps.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/judgments/

swrcb_judgmentn_clip

If that doesn’t work, then a trip to the Shasta County Superior Court will be necessary. This particular decree is not kept in a spot where a requester can wait in line. A request has to be filled out, and then you go in a few days later, review the case box(es), note which pages you want copied, and pay for copies.

My last post (Permits and Licenses) listed what information is available on the Board’s website. Additional information might be obtained with a phone call to the right person but folks at the Board usually have 5 times as much assigned as what they can get done. A visit to Sacramento might be necessary to get all the info.

Ownership information is also publicly available. It can be searched for free at the County Assessor Office, and in some counties, searched online, showing owners and sometimes even maps. Various private companies make ownership information available, which is really handy if you want to know the owners and mapping of 10…or 100…or 1,000 parcels. ParcelQuest is an excellent company, at parcelquest.com. They have various purchase plans and subscriptions; last I checked, anybody with a credit card can get a subscription for $100/month ($150/month premium plan) and query and download ownership in any of California’s 58 counties.

I agree, it is unsettling just how much information is quickly available on each of us and our possessions. Much of the information is free, and what isn’t can be had a little cost. On the other hand, if you are trying to figure out what your existing water right is, or what the water rights are for land you might purchase, you can figure out half of it online in a few hours time.

	Water Board Says: Me… on Installing Reservoir Staff Gag…
	Water Board Says: Me… on How Do I Measure And Report My…
	AllWaterRights - Rig… on Write It Down (Or Possibly Los…
	Anonymous on Write It Down (Or Possibly Los…
	Reasoning With Regul… on Use BING or DUCKDUCKGO To Sear…