Category: Water: Yours or State’s?

Water rights give a diverter the right to use the water reasonably and beneficially. Where agriculture was the main beneficial use on a lot of waterways, now instream flows, water quality, water temperature, groundwater recharge, and a host of other uses are making demands on the water. Can you use your water just the same as it was 50 years ago? What restrictions has the State put on your use of the water? What is likely to change your rights in the near future?

Telemetry Required On Diversions Over 20% Of Stream, or 30 CFS, or 10,000 AF+… By 2020; One Hardware Option Listed Here

According to the State Water Resources Control Board Drought Emergency Regulations, some diversions must be telemetered.   This does not applied to diverters under State or court-appointed watermaster service…their Watermaster IS their telemetry most of the time, by visits, phone, and email.

Stream Gage - Photo Credit: usgs.gov
Telemetered Stream Gage – Photo Credit: usgs.gov

 Which diversions must have telemetry, and when?  If you have read Paragraph (4) of the regulations (below), you have noticed that it is not easy to understand.  It took me 12 reads before I really figured it out…and I have read and applied more than 20 water rights court decrees over the last 12 years.

We’ll start with “when“.  Telemetering has to be installed and working by the end of 2019, to meet the Jan. 1, 2020 deadline.  That is, unless your diversion is from one of four named watersheds tributary to the Russian River…and all those folks are talking with the Water Board and know what their special deadlines are.

Now the “which“:

—–>  Anyone who diverts 10,000 AF per year or more.  What amount of diversion is this?  “It depends” is the usual answer.  Here are some examples:

  • A constant diversion of 27.8 cfs for 6 months, from one or more diversions to the same owner, and maybe to any lessor
  • A constant diversion of 21.8 cfs for 8 months, from one or more diversions to the same owner, and maybe to any lessor
  • A more real-life example is of a diversion that starts at 100% of the water right, say on April 1, and declines to 50% at the end of the season, say September 30.  For a steadily declining diversion over 6 months, the beginning rate is 37 cfs, and the diversion amount would drop to 19 cfs by the end of September.
  • Stretching out the season to 8 months, say March 1 to October 31, a diversion of 28 cfs declining steadily to 14 cfs.

—–>  Anyone who has a reservoir that can store 10,000 AF.  It does not matter if the actual diversion is zero, or 1,000 AF, the capacity makes the difference.

—–>  Anyone who diverts 30 cfs or more at ANY time, June through September.  Wouldn’t someone know if his or her diversion ever hits the 30 cfs mark?  Many times, no, especially when surplus flows early in the season may allow a diversion to take 20% to 50% more than the water right.  (Surplus flows are allowed for some water rights, not for others, that’s another subject….)

—–>  Anyone who diverts more than 1/5 of a creek or river (or maybe just 1/10 if the Board gives notice) that has a stream gage online, and who is on certain north coast streams, or Deer, Mill, or Antelope Creeks tributary to the Sacramento River, or 4 tributaries to the Russian River, …OR HAS, OR USED TO HAVE THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR PROTECTED FISH.  That last is the big deal and encompasses most of California’s waterways below the dams!  I suspect it does not apply at this time to most streams above Shasta and Friant Dams, since those were built prior to the passage of the federal Endangered Species Act in 1973.  The main concern on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers are listed spring and winter run Chinook salmon.  One or more fish species could be listed in the future on these above-dam streams, which is a potential issue just about everywhere.  Here’s a way-out-there thought – if agencies truck salmon up above the dams, are the fish still listed?

State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2016-0005
To Adopt a Drought Emergency Regulation For Measuring And Reporting Water Diversions

telem_1

telem_2

One Way To Telemeter A Diversion

There are out-of-the-box options for telemetry – I’ll mention just one here:  the In-Situ

in-situ_rugged_troll_200_loggerRugged Troll 200 Data Logger and Tube 300 Telemetry System.

The Troll 200 Data Logger ($595) can run independently without telemetry, or be attached to the Tube 300R Telemetry System ($1,320).  The Troll 200 is non-vented, so like the Onset Hobo data loggers mentioned in earlier posts, an extra unit is needed for air pressure to correct the water level (pressure) recorded by the unit in the water.  The cable and software for the Troll 200 are about $375.

The total unit cost for 2 Troll 200s, a Tube 300R, and accessories, is about $2,900.  Tax, shipping, and installation will add $600 and up, depending on location, elevation, and the length of the dirt road going in; and difficulty at the site and vandalism potential will add costs, too.  $3,500 + for telemetered water level logging is not cheap, but it is a lot less than a full-on gaging station with satellite radio, which costs $12,000 and up for components, and over $2,000 to install in easy locations.  Telemetry is expensive, there is no way of getting around that fact.

The Tube 300R requires a separate phone number for each water in-situ_tube_300r_telemetrylevel logger, and cell service.  In-Situ offers the option of $35/month web hosting, on its HydroVu Cloud Data Services Plan.  This cost is in addition to the Tube 300R, cell phone service, and installation.

But What About MY Water Right? I Don’t Care About Someone Else’s.

Senior Rights
  Water Rights Certificate. Photo: Los Angeles Daily News

Do you have a water right?  Then that is the one you care about.  General information is interesting, but not too useful or relevant.  When it comes down to it, your water right is the one you have to understand eight ways from
Sunday, and your water right is the one you have to defend.

But look at rights from another angle.  What rights do we as citizens of the United States all have, that we all really need to know?  Every U.S. citizen wants to be able to say what he wants, go to church or not, and attend political and protest meetings.  Where does it say that the federal government cannot prohibit or compel certain speech, church participation, and attend political meetings?

Of course you know that these rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Most of us learned this before we got

http://www.educationviews.org/law-protect-free-speech-top-churchman/
Free Speech Protest. Photo Credit: educationviews.org

to high school.  482 short words protect your and my freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition; right to keep and bear arms; right not to be forced to quarter soldiers; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, freedom from being tried twice for the same allegation; rights of accused persons, (speedy and public trial); right of trial by jury in civil cases; freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments; other rights of the people; powers reserved to the states.

Imagine having your house searched and not knowing what rights protect you.  How could you demand that soldiers do not forcibly enter your home, without

Warrant Sign, Photo Credit: 24hourbrowardbailbonds.com
Warrant Sign, Photo Credit: 24hourbrowardbailbonds.com

any knowledge of the 3rd Amendment?  Or, imagine being arrested during a traffic stop because you refused to let police search your vehicle.  What if you didn’t know anything about the 4th Amendment, which protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures?  How quickly life, liberty, and property can be lost when the accused does not know his or her constitutional rights!

How does this relate to water rights?  Who knows, you or one of your family might buy land with a different kind of water right.  If you have a summary understanding of water rights, you’ll be in a lot better place to know what the right is worth, how much water you might really get, and when.  What if an attorney or a government agency tells you that your property lost its water right – how could you even know you have an argument without some basic understanding?  Even when landowners get legal help, it can be pretty expensive…where knowing in advance could save hassle, time, and money.

One of my earlier posts has a bullet list that can be memorized, or printed on a card for a wallet or purse:

  1. Riparian – a parcel that touches a stream, spring or lake may use a ” reasonable and beneficial” amount, quantity and rate undefined, per the California Constitution.
  2. Rancho rights granted by the government of Spain or Mexico, prior to Statehood in 1850.
  3. Pueblo rights, the one belonging to Los Angeles being famous.
  4. Appropriative in 1913 and prior, aka “pre-1914”, for parcels not touching a body of water, which started with gold mining and is now mostly for agriculture.
  5. Post-1914 appropriative rights  issued by the State Water Resources Control Board.
  6. Adjudicated, or decreed, from Federal District or State Superior Court.
  7. Groundwater from a well, similar to surface water riparian but for the overlying land.
  8. Prescriptive, which isn’t a definite right until decreed by a court.
  9. Contracts, which are not rights but rely on some already-existing right(s).

Please leave a comment, correction, complaint, humor, or other message below:

Do you have a water right?

For comparison purposes, here is the United States Bill Of Rights, conveniently available on the home page of the Bill Of Rights Institute:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

U.S. Constitution, Photo Credit: constitution.org
U.S. Constitution, Photo Credit: constitution.org

government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Update – Worried about SB 88? That’s the problem I solve for you!

Worried about SB 88?  That’s what this blog is for!  Here is where you will find information you need, and can put to use, on selecting and installing flow measurement devices.  If you need help, Rights To Water Engineering can help you meet the law quickly and at a relatively low cost.  (530) 526-0134

California Senate Bill 88 is effective as of January 1, 2016.  Here is the part that affects private or small agricultural diverters the most:

SB88_Art3_Clip

Here is a convenient table that summarizes the Water Board‘s more specific regulations.  I added the two columns on the right to give folks an idea of how the volumes relate to water rights:

SWRCB Measurement and Recording Requirements for 2017 (diverters exempted where Watermaster reports)
SWRCB Measurement and Recording Requirements for 2017 (diverters exempted where Watermaster reports)

Five Times More Water Rights Than Average Runoff In California! But, So What? Who Cares?

L.A. Times – Rights to California surface water far greater than average runoff ………. California WaterBlog – California water rights: You can’t manage what you don’t measure ………. SacBee – California allocates vastly more water than supplies allow, study shows

You have read the articles – California’s water rights are WAY more than the average annual runoff!  The system is broken!  Agriculture is to blame – gosh, those capitalist farmers and ranchers are using precious water to make…Food!  Wood!  Paper!  Clothing!  Flowers!  A living, even Profits!  It’s obvious that I am using sarcasm; larger corporate farms notwithstanding, it’s not a big income-earning concern.  More people are leaving farms and ranches for easier work schedules and stable incomes, than are getting into farming.

From the L.A. Times – In California, rights to water exceed the supply :

“On some major river systems, especially in the parched San Joaquin Valley, the over-allocation is jaw-opening. On the San Joaquin River itself, people have rights to nearly nine times more water than flows down from the Sierra. On the Kern, it’s six times. On the Stanislaus, four.

“Water rights exceed average natural runoff on 16 major rivers, UC Davis researchers found last year. And they were only counting so-called junior rights — those granted after 1914, the last time the Legislature updated California’s convoluted water allocation system.

 

Based on the actual, not theoretical, effect of these water rights, we should be saying, “So what?”  Why is that, you ask?  For very good, practical reasons, as detailed here.

Decreed (adjudicated) surface water rights usually have maximum amounts, and reductions in supply are addressed by the decree specifying that lower priorities must shut off diversions first.  If all are the same priority, then everyone shares the losses by taking the same percentage reduction in flow.  Surplus flows can be diverted under many decrees, not under others, but availability of surplus diversions usually means flows are higher than average, and anyway they come earlier in the season, before flows drop in the summer.  The great majority of these rights are for agriculture, which either feeds you and me, or is sold outside the State and adds to our economy and government coffers.  I say, Who cares?  Limits on the use of these water rights are forever in place!

Riparian water rights have correlative shares of the available water…and reduced supply means riparian diverters must reduce diversions correlatively.  Sure, riparian diverters can divert as much as they can use reasonably and beneficially, according to the California Constitution, Article X, Section 2.  But, So what?  Who cares?  The acreage with riparian rights decreases every single year, as parcels with riparian rights are split.  The resultant parcels not adjacent to the stream no longer have riparian rights, except in the very rare case of a landowner getting an attorney’s help to deliberately reserve riparian rights on newly split parcels.

What about appropriative rights?  Think about it this way: pre-1914 appropriative water rights were maximized in…1914!  As World War I was starting, when the population was about 3 million compared to today’s 39 million, there were no more pre-1914 rights.  Regarding these senior water rights, So what?  Who cares?

What about post-1914 appropriative water rights?  As Hamlet said, “Ay, there’s the rub!”  Post-1914 water rights have grown steadily since 1915, as they were continually issued first by the State Water Commission, and then by its successor, the State Water Resources Control Board.  These are water rights are junior to all of those listed above, and they are conditioned, or limited, by the Water Board.  As shown during the last couple of years, the Water Board has the power to order the curtailment of some or all of these junior rights.  I say again, So what?  Who cares?

“Aha!”, say some, “You forgot that groundwater is making up all the shortage!  And that all comes from surface water!”  Yes, and in 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed to address exactly that.  It will take some years, but withdrawals will be more stable, by law, in years to come.  There would not BE groundwater deficits if surface water could get around the Delta as it originally did with SWP and CVP.  It is not for lack of money in the past to pay for pumps or even the planned peripheral canal, and it is not for the lack of technology to move the water.  It is for environmental reasons that the planned volume of water does not make it to the San Joaquin Valley.  But, that’s a subject for some later post.

Let’s be really absurd, and imagine that in California, the amount of water rights issued is ONE MILLION TIMES the average annual runoff!!!  If the average annual runoff is 70 million acre-feet, the water rights are now 70 Trillion, 70,000,000,000,000 AF Per Year!  Let’s all run around with our hair on fire!  But, what does this really mean?

If we have the same reservoirs for storage, then no more can be stored.  If there is half the runoff in a drought year, farmers, ranchers, cities, manufacturers, and other human users can still only capture and use a certain amount.  Having no more plumbing – reservoirs and canals – means a lot of water is still going to be in streams, and making it to the Pacific Ocean.  That’s “environmental” water for fisheries and other aquatic species.

If we have a record wet year, same thing.  Humans can still only capture and use what the plumbing allows.  A much higher percentage of water is available for non-human, environmental uses.  Same Plumbing = Same Maximum Water Use, regardless of water rights.

Let’s flip the argument around and imagine a California in which the average annual runoff is five times the water rights.  Put another way, total water rights are only one fifth the average annual runoff.  What would the State look like then?

This would be a lot closer to the non-human, environmental paradise imagined by the left-leaning populations of our densely-populated cities.  Scale back agriculture by a factor of 5, and then the rest of the State economy with it.  We would look more like a larger New Mexico, maybe a Colorado, than we do today.  And our 39 million residents?  We would have more like 8 million, as we had in World War II.  So, which 4 out of 5 choose to leave the State to bring about this flora and fauna utopia for the 1/5 that are left?  What, nobody is volunteering to leave California, and donate their property to the Sierra Club, to make this greater environmental national monument happen??  I didn’t think so.

This may be repetitious, but:  SO WHAT?  WHO CARES?

Finally, Moving On San Joaquin V. GW Recharge! Good Thing – Board Wants More Sac. R. Fish Flows

Delta Tunnel Alternative: Embracing Flooding for Water Supply

At last!  The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is seriously considering

Tulare Basin, Photo Credit: usgs.gov
Tulare Basin, Photo Credit: usgs.gov

planning for flooding the Tulare Basin and other San Joaquin Valley fields in the winter for groundwater recharge!  I worked at DWR for 30 years, and there were proponents of recharge when I started in 1986…actually, since the 1977-1978 drought.  I kept waiting for a pilot program to test it.  Stony Creek in Glenn County was put forward in the 80’s and 90’s…and then nothing.  The meadow restoration crowd said another 100,000 acre-foot “reservoir” could be made in upper Stony Creek just by building check dams, deepening and widening meadows.  Between the top and bottom of just one creek, maybe 160,000 AF of new storage per year!

I worked on the proposed Sites Reservoir and personally, I am all for it.  However, it’s dumb not to include every increment of winter-time storage possible.  When the floods come then put some of them in the ground.

The recent news article on this quotes David Gutierrez of DWR as saying, “That will not solve everything. There will be no silver bullet,” said David Gutierrez, executive manager of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program at the California Department of Water Resources. “But it’s a combination of these ideas together that will help us do better than we’ve been doing in the past.”  With due respect to Mr. Gutierrez, this is bureaucrat-speak for “We’ll add this in if the Legislature will get behind Delta Tunnels and above-ground storage first, and also stabilize DWR’s General Fund budget.”  As a former bureaucrat I get it; if DWR divides its focus, that’ll let anti-tunnels interests more easily short-circuit tunnels.  Come on though, bureaucrats, get behind some wins and get momentum going!  To be fair, state agencies work for the Governor and can’t lobby…but they do have some latitude to do pilot projects and steer some discretionary funds where they will do good.

And about time, too, since OTHER bureaucrats want to take some water from Northern California diverters and leave it in the Sacramento River for fish.  When I was watermastering, and in fact throughout my 30-year career, that was the top accusation/complaint I got:  “The State of California just wants to take away our water and send it to Southern California and fish.”  I was always able to say, “No, that’s not it, we’re just looking for ways to get the water that already flows downstream across the Delta, and time reservoir releases better for fisheries.”  I sure can’t say that anymore!

California eyes more Sacramento River water for fish, less for farms, cities

The article in the Sacramento Bee says in part: “Water board
Chairwoman Felicia Marcus cautioned that Wednesday’s staff report is merely a draft. She said her agency wants various groups to submit comments before it makes a decision, sometime next year. She said the board will take into account human needs before adopting any comprehensive plan.“swrcb_web_page-edited

Bull.  I call cow pies (I try hard not to cuss).  The Water Board is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency now, including the Division of Water Rights.  Has been for some years, and many of the more balanced staff have retired, as they hire more environmental activist enforcers.  From what I have seen, a majority of the non-Water Board part of Cal/EPA executive, managers, and staff believe non-humans have more right to the water than humans.

Quoting again from the article:  “The water board first floated the concept of dedicating more of the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds to the environment in 2010, triggering feverish warnings from a coalition of water agencies that up to 1.7 million acres of farmland would be idled as a result. With the proposals now taking on greater urgency, water users are responding with renewed alarm.

‘It’s both predictable and troublesome,’ said Tim Quinn of the Association of California Water Agencies, which represents urban and rural districts. He argued that the state should also examine other measures to help fish, such as habitat restoration.”

As many of you diverters have predicted for years, now the troublesome proposal is nearly a reality – an anguishing, changing world for you who work at least half-days (6 A.M. to 6 P.M.) to grow our food in businesses that get thanks from a small percentage of Californians.

Water Board Notice of Proposed Emergency Rulemaking – Water Rights Fees for Fiscal Year 2016-2017

I said yesterday that my blog posts will slow down.  Then this notice from the Water Board hit my email inbox.  These proposed water rights fee increases apply to existing and proposed permits and licenses, not pre-1914, court adjudicated, or riparian rights…unless someone also got a permit or license for one of these.

swrcb_notice_proposed_emergency_wr_fees_rules-edited

Why do the fees have to be increased, and why does the Water Board say it is an emergency?

“Moreover, the State Water Board finds that the proposed amendments to the Board’s fee regulations must be adopted immediately in order to allow for the timely collection of fees to conform to amounts appropriated by the Legislature from the Water Rights Fund for the support of water right program activities. Without fee revenue in the amounts appropriated, much of the water rights program would be in danger of being shut down. Continued administration of the water rights program is essential to the economy and environment of the State of California. Without funding for the program, critical water transfers and changes in water project operations would not be approved, the security of water rights needed for the state’s water supply projects would be undermined, and the environment would be threatened. New water supply projects for irrigation or municipal use, and modification of existing projects involving changes in permitted or licensed water rights, could not move forward. The water rights program also is important for the protection of public health. For example, the water rights program applies and enforces Bay-Delta water quality standards that protect the drinking water supplies for 22 million Californians. In sum, adoption of the proposed regulation is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and welfare.”

What are the many proposed fee changes?

attach-5a-emergency-regualtions-text1

attach-5a-emergency-regualtions-text2

attach-5a-emergency-regualtions-text3

Table Of Contents For All Water Rights!

It was getting hard for ME to go back and find the posts I had written, so I added a Table Of Contents (TOC) to the left menu bar.  As of this date, there are 86 posts!  I like to put work into standard, documented procedures totable_of_contents_page-edited simplify life and make it easier for me to do the same thing next time, and for the next person in my job to pick it up quickly.  Why did I wait this long to do a simple TOC?

I wrote 5 times this much verbiage in emails as a bureaucrat, so it is not lack of ability.  Of course most of my State emails were for everyday work and coordination.  Little of it had public interest.

In this blog, though, every post is of interest to a few thousand water right holders.  The TOC lets you scroll through every post at your leisure and pick out the titles you are most interested in today.  Tomorrow you’ll have a different question, and the TOC and blog posts will still be here for your use.

Do you have a question or an idea you do not see in the TOC?  Let me know and I’ll publish a post about it!

On the How Do I? page, I picked out the burning questions and the posts how_do_i_page-editedthat provide the best answers.  When I received phone calls in the Watermaster job from which I recently retired, this lookup format was most useful in helping someone solve an immediate problem.

Is there a water rights issue or flow measurement problem you can’t find an easy answer for?  Let me know and I will write a post, then include the link on this page, too!

Save

Permits And Licenses – What Are The Water Rights When Land Is Subdivided?

 Back in December, I posted on the place of use for water rights defined in A018405_ewrims_lic_pg1_purpose_amtpermits and licenses from the Water Board:  

allwaterrights.com/2015/12/16/a-place-for-permits-and-licenses/

Permits and licenses have a place of use – sometimes it is easy to locate on the ground, and sometimes it is so-many-acres within a larger area.  I have never found the maps with the online, downloadable documents available at eWRIMS.  To get the maps, staff at the Water Board have to be contacted, and a copy of the map must be requested separately.

If you have, or some other diverter has a water right and the land has never subdivided since the time that the permit or license was issued, then a new owner will easily be able to see where the water right is diverted and applied.  What if you own land subdivided from a larger farm or ranch with a permitted or licensed right?  Do you have a water right at all?  I asked Paul Wells at the Water Board, and he explained:

“When land with a water right is subdivided, the new owners are responsible for contacting the State Water Board to inform us of the ownership change. Additional information on filing a change of ownership may be found on the following webpage:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ewrims/ownership/

For administrative purposes, we have one primary contact for each water right. If the land is subdivided, the additional owners should contact our office to record that they are now co-owners under the right.

There is also the option of splitting the right into two or more rights. Each part would then be treated as an individual water right.”

That’s good news if you want to keep your part of the water right!  This comes with a big caution – the Water Board will consider whether a permitted or licensed right has been used within the last 5 years.  If not, it is possible the Board may consider the right to have expired…although it is not automatic.  Also, if one person has been paying the costs associated with the water right, both physical maintenance and Board fees, as well as filing all the paperwork (now online forms), that person may contest a subdivision of the water right.  The decision is in the hands of the Water Board.

This is much the same as a water right described in a Superior Court decree.  If Ex_2_Williamson_Parcel_Outline_on_DecreeMap_reducedthe right is areal and is a certain flow or volume on certain acreage, then it is usually proportioned by acreage for subdivided parcels.  There are exceptions – if the rights are apportioned differently by written agreement, then this may be accepted by a judge later if a case comes before the court.  If the resultant parcels are too small, then state watermaster areas will give the tiny rights to larger parcels.  For example, at the Department of Water Resources, the minimum right is 0.005 cfs, unless a tiny piece added to one or more other pieces sums to 0.005 cfs.

As always, it pays to do your research before bringing this up with Water Board staff or your neighbor.  On the one hand, you don’t want to waste your time and money only to find out your property was never part of the place of use described in a permit or license.  On the other hand, if your property should have a right, you want to make your claim clear and then approach your neighbor(s) politely with plenty of evidence.  Having a right doesn’t mean someone else won’t take action before the Water Board or in court, costing you time and money even if you are right.  So, prepare your paperwork, maps, photos, and calculations ahead of time.

I hope you got some of the rain we have had at our place the last couple of days.  That’s enough for now, have a good night everyone!

Good Reasoning – Public Servants Serve…Farmers, Ranchers Are The Ag. Producers

file000762170543
Photo credit: morguefile.com

My public service philosophy came largely from Watermasters, and I continue this way of thinking in my business.  The DWR Watermasters are good public servants, and they do what government employees are expected to do:  serve the public – in this case, a specific segment of the population – as they regulate diversions per decrees, make quick and correct decisions to resolve problems, educate new landowners, and keep other agencies out of decreed water rights.  However, Watermasters like Kevin Taylor and Joe Scott (and Les Grade, Ira Alexander, Mike Faber, Keith Dick, and others) taught me from the start, that the important part of the service is who is being served.

When Kevin would get complaints from diverters, he would often say, “I am interested in your success.  Watermaster service takes money out of your pocket, and food off your table – I understand that.  I want you and all the other diverters from this stream to prosper…and by making sure everyone can divert their legal entitlement, each person has the opportunity to succeed as far as it depends on the availability of a water right.”  Really, Kevin suppressed_weir_jackson_smallsaid nearly those exact words, which you know if you have ever talked with him.  Joe would often call diverters and say something like, “Hey, I just wanted you to know, flows came up and you can take another half a cfs.  Yeah, just open the gate another 3 turns, and I will fine tune it when I get there today.”  Or on the other hand, “Why did I turn your diversion down? You were taking way over your water right!  Oh, you think that’s unfair?  How about when your neighbor ______ upstream wants to crank up his diversion when he feels like it, and you can’t get your water?  The same rules apply to everyone on the creek – learn it, love it, live it!”

file000791511170
Photo credit: morguefile.com

Farmers and ranchers are the producers, bringing out of the ground, water, and air, what most of the rest of us do not have:  plenty of top quality food, lumber, flowers, and every kind of grown product.  The end results feed and supply our families, livestock, pets, as well as providing surpluses to export to other countries.  If agricultural producers did not work the long hours, take risks, weather market ups and downs, and try to keep their kids interested in the family business, food and everything that is grown would cost a whole lot more.  Sure, corporations own a lot of ag. land, but it takes the same people to make the farm work.

IM000225.JPG
Photo credit: morguefile.com

Government workers can do research, carry out the public will to contract (sometimes build) infrastructure, enforce laws and rules, and make resource use equitable or legal (not always the same thing).  That’s where state Watermasters come in.  They professionally administer Superior Court decrees, sometimes permits and licenses, day after day over many years, to ensure diverters get their legal share.  The good Watermasters, like Kevin and Joe, always keep uppermost in their mind that they are serving agricultural producers.  Every story needs a main character.  In the story of agricultural water diversion, the main characters are men and women who put water to use growing food and products.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

What’s a California Watermaster Doing in Oregon?

I picked up the phone, and the caller said, “There might be some trouble.  I got a call from the Oregon Watermaster, and he says a State of California employee cannot work in Oregon.  Well, what do we do now?”

California was the Watermaster for the North Fork of the Pit River as far back as the early 1930’s, until 2007 when Modoc County took it over.  The Watermaster up there, Mike, was doing a great job back in 2006, and in fact holding down two huge areas.  WaterNew_Pine_Dec1stpg_1925 - Editedmaster authority was pretty clear, except that the lower part of New Pine Creek crossed from California into Oregon.  Back in 1925 and 1932, when the lawsuits happened, the Superior Court Judge in Modoc County issued two decrees covering all the irrigated lands, even those in Oregon.

New_Pine_Dec1stpg_1932 - EditedCalifornia Watermasters had been working in both states for decades without any questions.  Now, all of a sudden, the Oregon Watermaster said our employees can’t work in their state unless we have some interstate agreement.

Documents could not be found in the offices in Oregon, or in our office in Red Bluff.  Probably there was such a document, and as boxes of reports, letters, and investigations piled up out into the hallways over the years, the box with THAT particulaNew_Pine_Cal-Orer piece of paper was thrown away.  Back to Mike’s question:  so now what do we do?  Like all good supervisors are supposed to do, I turned the question back to Mike.  “Wow, this could really be a big headache.  What do you think we should do right way?”  Mike suggested, “Lemme see if just he and I can sit down and talk about it.  I’ll let you know what comes out of that, and we’ll see if we have to get attorneys, management, the Director, and who knows who else involved.”  I thought Mike was pretty smart, like all the Watermasters are, so I said that was a great idea.

New_Pine_GoogleMap

A week later, Mike called back.  “Hey, I met with John, he’s a real nice guy.  I explained what our watermaster service is, how we’re always making some people a little mad, and a few people a lot mad while keeping diversions legal.  I told him how one time up there on New Pine Creek, a diverter came out on his porch after I turned down his diversion to his water right amount, and I was over talking to his neighbor when he fired 3 rifle shots in the air.  We talked about the early morning and late evening hours, and then I asked, what do you think we should do?  He thought about it and said, why don’t we keep the status quo?  If management got worried, then they could make a decision, but everything seems to be working real well.  I agreed, and that’s where we left it.”  “Mike, you’re a genius again, well done.  I’ll write a short email for the files and we’ll leave it at that.”

To this day, the California Watermaster works just a very short way into Oregon…and it serves the diverters very well.