California Targets Private Property With Latest Water Well Fees, Charges: Report

[Raul-02]

I hope that it doesn't come down to sacrificing humans

we kind of are. We have assigned to ourselves the blame for events that have happened again and again over the course of the planet's history telling ourselves that this time it's our fault.
This time it's not the solar system or the sun or the natural dynamism of the ever-changing planet, but rather that we did it and somehow it's wrong and we have to fix it.
And the imagined fixes are us sacrificing enormous amounts of our resources time and energy and all for a theory about as certain as the one the Aztecs had.

 

[npalen]

We all are. All the water on the planet has been shat into, spat into, and died into. There is no escaping used water. Same with the air.

Same with everything else. Every single molecule of material in my body was, in times past, somewhere else, serving some other purpose, and doing it countless times before those molecules found their way into my body.

We are all made up of used stuff.

I was just suggesting that if the well was not located very distant from the septic field.......

 

[brokeasajoke]

I was just suggesting that if the well was not located very distant from the septic field.......

Here in the mountains of NC in my county specific the code is a minimum of 100ft. Can't say on depth but it must be below frost line. Most water lines are 3ft so I would say at least that. I understand much comes to the surface and is used by any ground cover as well. I was just sort of being funny, but it is not untrue that I use it and put it back in the ground just not from 270ft down from which it came.

 

[Egon]

Anyone note the water issues between two states that has contracts going back over a hundred years. Can’t offhand recall the States but I think the Platte River is involved.

 

[Doughknob]

You don't own a damn thing anyhow; stop paying property taxes and see how quickly you're booted off 'your' property. So just bend over, relax, bite down on a small block of wood, and let Big Daddy Government track and tax your water usage. It's better for all of us in the long run, right? So just take it.

And buy that EV now! Your gonna have to eventually! LOL

 

[jigs_n_fixtures]

I literally had the signup form in my hand to be a volunteer firefighter when the local captain said something about poison oak smoke, and I realized that I really wasn't a good fit. Like a really bad fit. I am incredibly allergic to poison oak.

@MossRoad Yes, the Forest service is rethinking their spending and grappling with harder to raise funds for prevention rather than disaster or fire fighting. But the hurdle is redoing the budget, and transitioning from preventing fires at all costs to reducing the intensity of fires. Personally, I would expect a mix of mechanical and human underbrush clearing, and controlled burns in the wet season for brush reduction.
e.g. Fire Management - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

History of wildfire suppression in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't hold your breath, but I think it is clear that the current practices aren't working well.

All the best,

Peter

Biden administration, requested, and Congress approved funding to transition all of the permanent Federal Government seasonal fire fighters to year round, and more project funding to plan and implement fuel thinning projects.

We‘ll have to wait and see where it goes. The FS has been fighting and extinguishing all fires for a hundred years, an the theory they would timber sale and clear large fire breaks.

There wasn’t enough demand for the wood to sell that much, and then the enivroment rules hit, and ended the ability to actually sell wood. Which pushed most lumber mills to Canada. So, now even if the FS has a timber sale they get few, if any bidders.

 

[Raul-02]

I was just suggesting that if the well was not located very distant from the septic field..

That can be a problem, so also can allowing animals to live and congregate around a well.

 

[jigs_n_fixtures]

Anyone note the water issues between two states that has contracts going back over a hundred years. Can’t offhand recall the States but I think the Platte River is involved.

E every water basin in the nation has overdraw issues, whether it is a surface water, or ground water basin.

The problem lies in convincing people how critical fresh water is, and the need to protect, and conserve it.

 

[Oaktree]

I can't guess why. But a RO system into which you reintroduce the mineral load that best suits your taste would fix the problem. The Reverse Osmosis would remove everything from the water leaving only water. Then you can make it taste great.

I haven't lived there for almost 25 years. I recall one of my neighbors telling me what was in the water that made it kind of nasty, but I don't recall what it was. I do know that he spent $$$ for some sort of filtration system that helped somewhat, but it still wasn't great water. He'd put in his system in the early 80s, maybe the technology's improved since then.
I can only imagine what people who live in some western states with sulphur-y water must go thru.

Doctrine of Reasonable Use​

The Reasonable Use doctrine, also known as the "American Rule," is a variation of the Absolute Dominion doctrine. A property owner may have access to all the groundwater underneath his/her property as long as it is used "reasonably" and doesn't greatly affect the rights of those who may share the same aquifer.

How deep do these rights go? Is it just "water table" water, such as you'd tap with a dug well or does it apply to deeper drilled wells too?

 

[ponytug]

Anyone note the water issues between two states that has contracts going back over a hundred years. Can’t offhand recall the States but I think the Platte River is involved.

Colorado and Nebraska. The two states have a century old compact that allows Nebraska to build a canal in Colorado (including eminent domain rights in Colorado to acquire land) to divert 500cfs (224,000gpm) of South Platte waters to Nebraska. The canal had some construction done many years ago. Nebraska has brought it up again by approving (IIRC) $53M to study and plan the canal construction, which is thought (!) will cost $500M.

Nebraska Canal Project Targeting Colorado Clears Key Hurdle

Nebraska took another step Wednesday toward building a canal that would divert water out of neighboring Colorado under a 99-year-old compact, a project based in fears about the Denver area's growing use of the South Platte River that runs through both states.

www.cbsnews.com

It would appear to be in response to Colorado entertaining 28 water diversion and storage proposals to the tune of $9.9B...

For a legal view on what might actually be possible;

A Reality Check on Nebraska’s Proposed South Platte River Canal

The South Platte River Compact does not obligate Colorado to supply any particular quantity of non-irrigation season water.

somachlaw.com

(I have not read the compact, and have zero understanding of Colorado and Nebraska water laws.)

Nebraska supposedly gets 9% of its water from the Platte river.

All the best,

Peter

 

[ericm979]

Biden administration, requested, and Congress approved funding to transition all of the permanent Federal Government seasonal fire fighters to year round, and more project funding to plan and implement fuel thinning projects.

Making all seasonals permanant would be awesome but I have not seen any legislation doing that. So far all that's happened is one time (or a couple time) extra payments, mostly to seasonals. That passes last year and it took most of a year for funds to actually show up. There's a lot that needs to be done still to make the federal fire fighting force equivalent to what the states are doing.

We‘ll have to wait and see where it goes. The FS has been fighting and extinguishing all fires for a hundred years, an the theory they would timber sale and clear large fire breaks.

Timber sales do not help the fuels problem. In a timber sale you take the biggest trees because they make more 2x4s. But those are also the trees that survive fire the best. To restore forest health we need to thin out the small stuff and do way more controlled burns. The trees that get thinned are often not good for lumber. We need ways to use them like pulp mills and biomass plants. Even if we have to subsidize those, we can still extract some value from the thinning slash.

Changing the USFS's mind set from one of fight fire at any cost (i.e the 10am rule) to one of forest management will be a big undertaking and I'm not sure the present leadership is up for the task. Watching them lie to congress about how many unfilled fire fighter positions there are was discouraging. It may require new laws too.

California went backwards by renaming California Dept of Forestry to Cal Fire. The focus and money has increasingly gone to fire fighting at the cost of doing the forestry work to reduce fires. The recently programs and requirements to do fuels reduction are welcome but the dept is lagging on acreage and often counts the same acres multiple times.


Does anyone have a link to the actual California well regulations mentioned in the articles linked earlier? All I can find is angry words about a supposed letter but not the actual text of anything. I've not gotten a letter and no one on the 2000+ person mailing list for the local mountain area has mentioned getting one.

 

[dmccarty]

It doesn’t say the land owner owns the water. It says they can pump as much as they need in most situations, so long as it’s not wasted or intentionally meant to drain the neighbor. In a nutshell, the deepest, most powerful wells can suck the neighbors dry as long as it’s being put to good use.

However, there are some exceptions to that in the document you linked to.

I did not look refer to the Texas ground water ownership in the document I linked but referenced it for Arkansas.

As I said,

In Texas, the water is owned by the landowner, which was a decision in the Texas Supreme court a decade or so back.

Here is a link about the case, Texas Courts Start to Fill in the Blanks on Groundwater Law – Texas Living Waters Project

In Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) v. Day, the Day family and others sued the EAA claiming that the EAA’s regulation of the aquifer, which limited the landowner’s right to pump groundwater, violated their constitutional rights because the landowner owns the water under their property. The court ruled in Day’s favor; however, the decision was as striking for what it didn’t say as for what it did. While the court held that ownership of groundwater is a property right attached to surface ownership, the Court also held that regulation of the resource is permissible.

In Texas, unless there has been a more recent ruling, the property owner owns the ground water under the property.

Later,
Dan

 

[Larry Caldwell]

Our 20,000 sqft (1/2 acre) lawn theoretically requires about 12,500 gallons per week to apply 1" of moisture. Considering the overlap needed with the sprinklers to get 100% coverage, I'm sure its at least 15,000 gallons per week so the 20,000 gallon threshold wouldn't last long.

That's not a lawn, that's irrigated pasture. Plus, your side of the Rockies gets summer moisture. Your lawn is not relevant to areas that do not.

 

[California]

Some random observations on California water:

Water was scarce for the first settlers, the gold miners who had to wait for the rainy season to wash and filter accumulated ore. So water law started from the concept that the first upstream user had rights to all the water they could use. (Also that they could dump all their debris back in the creek causing floods downstream - this led to some of the first restrictions). The evolution of that water law today means almond growers and other high-volume water users have prior rights to as much water as they can use. This is controversial, almonds and alfalfa are major export uses of now-scarce water and law is evolving that can restrict this. Meanwhile financial speculators are buying farmland and planting almonds to control water rights that they know will will be more valuable in the future. (Lots of oversimplification, but relevant). One example: City of Davis and UC-Davis ag school considered buying adjacent land (Mace Ranch etc) to secure enough water for the city. Speculators got there first and now Davis has to buy water from them at a price that gives the speculators a nice return.

Nestle is buying and hoarding water rights worldwide. Their Arrowhead bottled water is one application and there have been challenges to their near-free access to water.

Mother of a kid that was in wife's GS troop is a water-specialist attorney. She said California water law precedents are unbelievably complex and contradictory, she makes a good living suggesting strategy that would withstand court challenges.

USGS photos showing subsidence caused from pumping subsurface water in the San Joaquin Valley:

[source]

[source]

and a quote with the second picture:

Between May of 2015 and September 2016 areas near the South San Joaquin Valley community dropped upwards of 25 inches in the last drought due to land sinking with the removal of water from underground aquifers.

The subsidence was the end result of jacked up groundwater pumping due to the Bureau of Reclamation cutting off water deliveries as growers scrambled to protect hundreds of millions of dollars invested in cropland and orchards.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

Hey, if you have land, and water is under that land, it is your water. I wonder how your argument would be if they found oil on your land. Maybe even a vein of mineral? It'd probably be a little bit different I imagine.

Maybe in Arkansas. Here in the West, we have things called water rights. Water on your property is not yours unless you have title to it. By state law, every home has water rights for domestic water and 1/4 acre of garden or lawn. Anything more than that requires senior water rights, and you can be prosecuted or sued for using water you don't have a right to. Even livestock watering from a stream requires water rights.

 

[Jstpssng]

Maybe in Arkansas. Here in the West, we have things called water rights. Water on your property is not yours unless you have title to it. By state law, every home has water rights for domestic water and 1/4 acre of garden or lawn. Anything more than that requires senior water rights, and you can be prosecuted or sued for using water you don't have a right to. Even livestock watering from a stream requires water rights.

I've heard about western water rights off and on over the years, but this is the first time I've seen them explained. One family from here bought land in Oregon because it has the water rights... and are growing pot on it since it's legal on the state level there.

 

[dmccarty]

...

Mother of a kid that was in wife's GS troop is a water-specialist attorney. She said California water law precedents are unbelievably complex and contradictory, she makes a good living suggesting strategy that would withstand court challenges.

USGS photos showing subsidence caused from pumping subsurface water in the San Joaquin Valley:

[source]

[source]

and a quote with the second picture:

At least the soil is not disappearing...

The land/soil around Lake Okeechobee, which used to be part of the Everglades, has been disappearing since the canals were built to drain the swamps. I remember seeing a photo 30 or so years ago, where a post was driven to bedrock and left flush with the soil an Agricultural station. The top of the post was about six feet above grade...

The land is not lowering, the soil is just disappearing. At some point, some of the farms will not have soil and will be down to bedrock. I wonder if any of the CA land height changes is from soil loss.

Found these photos from this site, SL 311/SS523: Everglades Agricultural Area Soil Subsidence and Sustainability, which is not what I saw, but the same idea.

Later,
Dan

 

[ROUSTABOUT]

Maybe in Arkansas. Here in the West, we have things called water rights. Water on your property is not yours unless you have title to it. By state law, every home has water rights for domestic water and 1/4 acre of garden or lawn. Anything more than that requires senior water rights, and you can be prosecuted or sued for using water you don't have a right to. Even livestock watering from a stream requires water rights.

One of the many reasons I do not live or even visit the west.

 

[Fixastuff]

I love how people talk about how they would never live in California like that hurts California. I'm sure most of the people living in California are thinking they'd never live where I live but don't need to go online posting about it. Lol.

 

[lman]

It sounds like if you don't like to mow a yard or have a garden, California is a great place to live.
I just got done mowing for a couple hours. No irrigation.