California Laws Restrict Groundwater Use On Private Land

When I lived in Nicaragua, water and electricity were regularly cut off, presumably because of poor infrastructure. The locals, however, were resigned to the idea that it was all at the whim of the powers that be. What's my point? Whichever scenario is true, both of them show it's a bad deal when water and electricity are in the hands of a few powerful people.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Kapusta

If at all possible, I'd move. Seriously. Though, this could happen anyplace. You folks in Cali need to become very vocal and fight this nonsense. Fight it hard and fast. They control water, they control everything. Literally. No water, no life. How long before water is denied to any that don't obey the current party line? It's coming.

The restrictions and regulations are being implemented to make sure that there is water, and life.

a reply to: Kapusta

A lot of home land owners like on and around State or government land...are free to use their lands well water...but don't have the mineral rights below the land you do own...that's the gov or state that does. You?

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Kapusta

If at all possible, I'd move. Seriously. Though, this could happen anyplace. You folks in Cali need to become very vocal and fight this nonsense. Fight it hard and fast. They control water, they control everything. Literally. No water, no life. How long before water is denied to any that don't obey the current party line? It's coming.

in all fairness ,easier said than done . I mean if I had prior knowledge of this I would have been proactive .

but as you read in the clipping they tried to keep it "hush hush "

I hear that! It isn't easy to just move, in all cases. I worry about the good, sane people in California, my favorite author included. Lots of craziness out that way! I watched a video talking about how tons of water was wasted, too, from some river, while being rationed elsewhere. would have to look to see which show it was. One about a guy getting into restricted areas, as I recall.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Kapusta

If at all possible, I'd move. Seriously. Though, this could happen anyplace. You folks in Cali need to become very vocal and fight this nonsense. Fight it hard and fast. They control water, they control everything. Literally. No water, no life. How long before water is denied to any that don't obey the current party line? It's coming.

The restrictions and regulations are being implemented to make sure that there is water, and life.

The restrictions often make no sense, however, and that's the issue. A private well is just that, private. This case is more about taking private property from people than it is about making sure there is enough water for others. That, and collecting money for nothing.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
All water ends up in the ground. By taking from one spot you are effectively draining your neighbours as well. Has nothing to do with taking private property and more to do with not enough or not effective enough restrictions to everyone, not just the people they deem fit.

Why does the State require water users to have a water right?

Water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians. California's waters cannot be owned by individuals, groups, businesses, or governmental agencies. But permits, licenses, and registrations give individuals and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water.

a reply to: superman2012

I am Referring to not having knowledge of well water restrictions.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Kapusta

A lot of home land owners like on and around State or government land...are free to use their lands well water...but don't have the mineral rights below the land you do own...that's the gov or state that does. You?

I am in a area that i can get the mineral rights just by filing a mining claim.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
All water ends up in the ground. By taking from one spot you are effectively draining your neighbours as well. Has nothing to do with taking private property and more to do with not enough or not effective enough restrictions to everyone, not just the people they deem fit.

A well on private property should not be under the control of the government, and people should not have to pay for that water. If you can't see the issue there, I can't help you.

a reply to: ANNED

I always thought that was the case...here in MIchigan I could once have bought some beautiful river front acerage along the Au Sable river...about 80 acres...but was told because it was on and border state land (National Forests area)...that they would always own below ground ie: the mineral rights....even though I could dig a well on my property.

It seems screwy for you to have to go through the hassle you are!

Thanks for replying. MS

originally posted by: Kapusta
a reply to: Xcathdra

how can we be to blame when "we" had no knowledge of it ?

Just saying I had no prior knowledge of any of it .

This has been building in 10 years. There are solutions to it too, but those solutions cost money. Money the state doesn't want to spend.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The restrictions often make no sense, however, and that's the issue. A private well is just that, private. This case is more about taking private property from people than it is about making sure there is enough water for others. That, and collecting money for nothing.

Restrictions while needing to be practical enough to reduce water consumption also need to have a psychological effect so that people are able to feel they can do small things to do their part. The number of toilet flushes matters very little, but it's important if people are going to accept they're in a drought that they are able to make concessions too.

Quite frankly, California has very few options right now. They need to build a bunch of desalinization plants, then they need to build new power plants to run them, then they need to close off most of the coast so they can run pipelines to reintroduce the salt back into the ocean without creating dead zones.

It takes approximately 1 power plant per desalinization plant, and that doesn't come cheap. You'll pay for it in a water bill, then you'll probably pay in an electric bill. Then the agriculture using that water will charge you again in the grocery store.

Vertical farming or hydroponic farming at a minimum. desalinization plants, geothermal power plants, lots of coastal pipeline, and a plan to refill aquifers all while in a drought. Besides being ambitious we're talking a several billion dollar project, it's likely out of California's budget which means the only way to do it is federal money.

So people think Nestle is bad, farms are bad, fracking is bad, and whatnot else is bad... Undenianbly, they all have their bad sides.

But what about the overpopulation on this part of the land? How come people still reprocreate like rabbits when lack of water is well known? How come the government doesn't stop immigration when he knows it will lead to water deficiency? How come the government doesn't invoke 1-child politics, when he sees resources are sparse? How come people still bury their head in the sand and elect the same stupid government, when everything is going downhill?

Yeah, Nestle and farms are to blame... sure... are they?... they produce food for the overpopulation that is. If there weren't so many people they wouldn't need so much resources. No one is to blame alone, but everyone has part in it, which is to blame.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I used to work property law in the Southeastern states. I don't know about California, but....if its any thing like the Southeastern states, the landowner owns the minerals and oil and gas located beneath their property, not the government. The landowner also has an ownership right in the water that might be in reservoirs beneath their property, not the Government.

Compare and contrast that to Canada, where the "Crown", (the Government) owns all mineral resources that lie beneath the surface property of private property owners.

Part of the direction California may be going is toward the Agenda 21 model in which individual human beings have no Real Estate property rights. So, for example, you don't buy a 50 foot lot to put a house on, you "lease" the lot from a Public Trust organization. They intend that all property be owned in these "Public Trusts". So, California is going from an "ownership" model to a "rental society" model in which no one has any real "stake" in the society or the State.

Its an interesting model and one that is probably preferable to the new "American" society as its presently developing.

New Mexico has water regulation for many, many years. Private wells on private land, have meters. Thee meters are monitored by the state government, and each farmer, or well owner, is allowed so much water per acre. This is to ensure that their is enough water to go around each year, as sometimes we are in a drought, and water is scarce. The Rio Grande river, for the first time in MANY years, is filled to the tops of its banks right now. Most of the year, there is no water in it at all. The water is dammed up north. Again, this is due to the lack of precipitation over the years. As a previous poster said, just because water runs under your property does not mean that it begins and ends there. Water is not a never ending resource, and people need to stop treating it as if it is.

originally posted by: anotherdaytoday
So people think Nestle is bad, farms are bad, fracking is bad, and whatnot else is bad... Undenianbly, they all have their bad sides.

Some people are against everything. While all of the above have their bad sides they also all have good sides too. Nestle puts several products people enjoy on the markets. Farms make food cheap and plentiful. Fracking supplies us with energy and gives our nation leverage against groups like Russia and OPEC.

But what about the overpopulation on this part of the land? How come people still reprocreate like rabbits when lack of water is well known? How come the government doesn't stop immigration when he knows it will lead to water deficiency? How come the government doesn't invoke 1-child politics, when he sees resources are sparse? How come people still bury their head in the sand and elect the same stupid government, when everything is going downhill?

There's no need for 1 child policies. Every developed nation is going backwards in population growth, everyone is relying on immigration to keep their numbers steady or growing. When people have access to resources they have fewer children since survival of the species isn't a concern. When resources are fewer such as in undeveloped countries, that's when people go out of control with having children as it ensures a few survive.

Yeah, Nestle and farms are to blame... sure... are they?... they produce food for the overpopulation that is. If there weren't so many people they wouldn't need so much resources. No one is to blame alone, but everyone has part in it, which is to blame.

If there were fewer people there would also be fewer people to work at extracting the resources for everyone else. Fewer people wouldn't necessarily translate into more available resources.

I can get all the water i need with my old air powered drill motor.

There are two big Los Angeles Aqueduct pipes that run within 7 miles of where i live.

It would not take me long to steal back the water that LA is stealing from us up here.

a reply to: xpert11

Any failures in infrastructure spending aren't the fault of Obama but rather the states. When Obama went forward with their plan the states pushed back saying it was federal over reach for the feds to dictate how the states spend their money. The feds ultimately agreed and let the states spend it however they chose. Almost all of the money went to shore up budgets (remember, their bank accounts that were invested in the market to earn a return all just crashed to worth nearly nothing) and very little actually went to any of the intended use.