How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right – Part 2

…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:



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


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 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.


How to Divide Up a Decreed Water Right – Part 1

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_neighborsNow 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:

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_croppedAfter 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 EngineeringEx_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….


Quick Change of Subjects: What’s a Water Right Permit Cost?

What does it cost to get a surface water right?  If your land is not riparian to the stream where the water is, or maybe one parcel is but your other 5 parcels are not, then you’ll need to file for a (Post-1914) appropriative right with the State Water Resources Control Board.


Let’s say you want to irrigate 50 acres of new almond orchard in the Sacramento Valley.  How much water do you need for micros-sprinkler irrigation?  Let’s use the value for a 5-year-old orchard, about 3.33 acre-feet (AF) per year for irrigation and frost protection.  That number comes from the U.C. Davis Report Sample Costs To Establish An Orchard And Produce Almonds Sacramento Valley – 2012, at ,

The total annual volume of water for 50 acres is 3.33 * 50 = about 167 AF/year.  That equates to a constant flow of 0.03 cfs.  But, you probably irrigate one day per week, so 7 times the average rate = 0.21 cfs. So, in your permit application, you would need to apply for 167 AF/year, diverted at a maximum rate of 0.21 cfs.

To get the rate for filing for a permit with the Board, we need to check the fee schedule:


So your application fee would be $1,000, plus $15 per AF over the first 10 AF.  Your cost would be $1,000 + (167 AF – 10 AF) * $15/AF, for a total of $3,350.  There is also an annual cost:


Your annual fee would be $150 + $0.063 per AF over the first 10 AF.  Your annual cost would be $150 + (167 AF – 10 AF) * $0.063/AF, for a total of $160/year.

Of course, these costs are if it’s a “slam dunk” and there are no complications.  There would likely be a 1602 permit required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and there could be other permits.  If anyone contests the application, then you would have more fees (see the schedule), perhaps attorney fees, and perhaps a negotiation to use water from someone else’s diversion.

A Place For Permits And Licenses

A Permit or License is required to hold Post-1914 water rights issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. An Application starts the process, then the right is permitted, and once proven, licensed.  This is the engineering summary of the process, not as precise or detailed as an answer from an attorney or a bureaucrat.

Let’s take a look at a license.  All of the information shown here is publicly available and it was downloaded from the Board’s website.  Note that the License has 3 identification numbers, all of which are important:

Application:  18405          Permit:  13122          License:  12363

From the language in the body, it is clear that the first use of water at this location was in 1958.  An Application was filed at some point, and proof of the claim was established in 1979 when the Board inspected the diversion.  A Permit might have been issued at the same time in 1979 – that information is not listed here.  Finally in 1988, the water right holder obtained the License.



Now to the subject of this post, on Page 2 the Place of Use is listed.  The clip below shows the end of Page 1 and the start of Page 2:


The place of use is defined as  1) at the reservoir, and  2) on 357.7 acres somewhere within 3 Sections, an area totaling about 1,900 acres.  The clip above also lists the point of diversion, and the purposes of use, but we’re focusing on the Place of Use right now.  Let’s go look at the map.

Whoops!  This License was downloaded as a PDF from the Board’s Electronic Water Rights Information Management System (eWRIMS) website at The thousands of downloadable permits and licenses in the database do not include the maps, as far as I have ever seen.  To get that, we would have to visit the Board’s office in the CalEPA building in Sacramento.

However, there is also an eWRIMS Geographic Information System (GIS), in addition to the database.  We can see the location of the diversion on either a  topographic map, or on an aerial photo.  Here’s what that looks like:


The pink text in the middle of the photo is where the GIS shows the diversion for this License.  What is the Place of Use?  That is not shown.  With some other information, like who owns the surrounding parcels of land, and maybe a telephone call to the owner, manager, or representative, we could probably figure out where the Place of Use is.

However, land can change hands so the owner shown on the license may no longer be correct.  Sometimes parcels get split up and one of the present-day owners pays for the permit covering the entire Place of Use.  It can get complicated without seeing the original hardcopy of the map.  The owner might not even have a copy of the map, especially if ownership has changed hands several times.  It’s good to memorize or keep on a Post-It the number for the Board: (916) 341-5300.

That’s enough for this post.  Stay tuned for upcoming posts on the Place of Use, Purpose of Use, Point of Diversion, and water right amount….

California Water Right Holders Now Required To Have Measuring Devices

Water laws are changing at lightning speed because California is in a historic drought. Groundwater law was passed requiring local agencies to be formed to manage groundwater. In 2012, I thought that would take 20 years to happen. The drought accelerated it to 2 years.

Surface water laws were passed in 2009, greatly increasing penalties for not reporting diversions, for misreporting, for overdiverting – in short, for evading, lying, and stealing. Suddenly tens of thousands of diverters who had been ignoring the State Water Resources Control Board started to worry. How do I report, am I in hot water if the Board sends me a letter, how do I figure out what my water right is?

The California Water Code Section 5100-5107 has the new, more restrictive part of the Water Code.

For example CWC 5103 (e) (B) says:

” (i) On and after July 1, 2016, the measurement of a diversion of 10 acre-feet or more per year shall comply with regulations adopted by the board pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 1840) of Chapter 12 of Part 2. “

That doesn’t sound too bad. But what does CWC 1840 say?

” 1840 (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a person who, on or after January 1, 2016, diverts 10 acre-feet of water per year or more under a permit or license shall install and maintain a device or employ a method capable of measuring the rate of direct diversion, rate of collection to storage, and rate of withdrawal or release from storage. The measurements shall be made using the best available technologies and best professional practices, as defined in Section 5100, using a device or methods satisfactory to the board, as follows:
(A) A device shall be capable of continuous monitoring of the rate and quantity of water diverted and shall be properly maintained. The permittee or licensee shall provide the board with evidence that the device has been installed with the first report submitted after installation of the device. The permittee or licensee shall provide the board with evidence demonstrating that the device is functioning properly as part of the reports submitted at five-year intervals after the report documenting installation of the device, or upon request of the board.
(B) In developing regulations pursuant to Section 1841, the board shall consider devices and methods that provide accurate measurement of the total amount diverted and the rate of diversion. The board shall consider devices and methods that provide accurate measurements within an acceptable range of error, including the following:
(i) Electricity records dedicated to a pump and recent pump test.
(ii) Staff gage calibrated with an acceptable streamflow rating curve.
(iii) Staff gage calibrated for a flume or weir.
(iv) Staff gage calibrated with an acceptable storage capacity curve.
(v) Pressure transducer and acceptable storage capacity curve.
(2) The permittee or licensee shall maintain a record of all diversion monitoring that includes the date, time, and diversion rate at time intervals of one hour or less, and the total amount of water diverted. These records shall be included with reports submitted under the permit or license, as required under subdivision (c), or upon request of the board.
(b) (1) The board may modify the requirements of subdivision (a) upon finding either of the following:
(A) That strict compliance is infeasible, is unreasonably expensive, would unreasonably affect public trust uses, or would result in the waste or unreasonable use of water.
(B) That the need for monitoring and reporting is adequately addressed by other conditions of the permit or license.
(2) The board may increase the 10-acre-foot reporting threshold of subdivision (a) in a watershed or subwatershed, after considering the diversion reporting threshold in relation to quantity of water within the watershed or subwatershed. The board may increase the 10-acre-foot reporting threshold to 25 acre-feet or above if it finds that the benefits of the additional information within the watershed or subwatershed are substantially outweighed by the cost of installing measuring devices or employing methods for measurement for diversions at the 10-acre-foot threshold.
(c) At least annually, a person who diverts water under a registration, permit, or license shall report to the board the following information:
(1) The quantity of water diverted by month.
(2) The maximum rate of diversion by months in the preceding calendar year.
(3) The information required by subdivision (a), if applicable.
(4) The amount of water used, if any, for cannabis cultivation.
(d) Compliance with the applicable requirements of this section is a condition of every registration, permit, or license.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 32, Sec. 98. Effective June 27, 2016.) “

Now THAT has a punch. There are exceptions in following paragraphs, but the Board now wants “continuous monitoring”, meaning one of the older, mechanical Stevens Recorders and the like, or newer, electronic pressure transducers. Now we are talking $500 and up just for recording data, in addition to a measurement weir, flume, or orifice.

And the diverter has to provide “evidence”. How is that done? Is a photo good enough? A video? A drawing? A statement by the local ditch tender, the Resource Conservation District, a technician, or an engineer?

Of course, the Board has higher priorities with larger diversions, and streams with anadromous (chinook and steelhead) fisheries. Still, it is an open question about when the Board will get to your or my diversion.

Complaints from neighbors with a grudge tend to elevate problems that the Board considers. But, water is nothing to argue over, is it? Or have grudges?

More on this later. Good night to all.

All Water Rights, California

Welcome to the All Water Rights Blog!