Darian
03-02-2015, 11:07 PM
A headline article in todays SacBee reports that the CA SWRCB has issued a request for water diverters from near Redding to around Merced to prove up their water rights. This began in response to a complaint filed by CA DWR and BuRec, and a counter complaint by CSPA. Each complainant charges the other with illegally diverting water. Respondents to the SWRCB request were given a very limited time in which to provide the information required to prove their rights. Check it out:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11882384.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2
(Don't forget to read the comments under the article)
Frankly, after reading this article, I'm amazed to find out that SWRCB doesn't already have this information available. Hasn't water been diverted in this state under permits issued by the SWRCB since long before the board was created. That's since before the turn of 19th century. As the article indicates, the evidence of some of those rights is not readily available in the short period provided in the SWRB notice, requiring complete chain of ownership established through title searches. In this instance, it seems that SWRCB had the responsibility to establish/maintain this info all along if it, also, is responsible for issuing permits allowing diversion and the power to issue stop notices. SWRCB has clearly dropped the ball here.
Finally, why does this demand by SWRCB not include water districts/users below Merced?? (....an area served by Westlands and the Kern County Water Agency/Bank among others).
Kinda sounds like the first step in thinning the herd doesn't it???
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11882384.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2
(Don't forget to read the comments under the article)
Frankly, after reading this article, I'm amazed to find out that SWRCB doesn't already have this information available. Hasn't water been diverted in this state under permits issued by the SWRCB since long before the board was created. That's since before the turn of 19th century. As the article indicates, the evidence of some of those rights is not readily available in the short period provided in the SWRB notice, requiring complete chain of ownership established through title searches. In this instance, it seems that SWRCB had the responsibility to establish/maintain this info all along if it, also, is responsible for issuing permits allowing diversion and the power to issue stop notices. SWRCB has clearly dropped the ball here.
Finally, why does this demand by SWRCB not include water districts/users below Merced?? (....an area served by Westlands and the Kern County Water Agency/Bank among others).
Kinda sounds like the first step in thinning the herd doesn't it???