[SCE] A New Court Ruling Could Threaten California’s Ability To Regulate Water Use Amid Dr ought | ThinkProgress
alevine at mcn.org
alevine at mcn.org
Tue Jul 14 11:46:14 PDT 2015
The State Board does not see the Court Decision in the same lite.
#1) they are appealing
#2) they think tweeking the process may solve the problem
As far as weed growers are concerned - they can do some damage - but they
are a minor part of the the overal usage problem - and a way to displace
enforment energy and not really deal with the larger water use and
diversion issues.
Alan
> ==========================
> Sonoma Coast Environmental
> ==========================
> This is bad from a conservation view point but not a civil libertarian
> view.Nothing to do with right or wrong or fixing the problem. It has to do
> with legality The efficacy of the State becoming draconian because of a
> drought. i have thought for a few months now that the WATER BOARD is
> overstepping their legal abilities. Some of this "appears" as a reaction
> to pressure from Assemblyman Woods and Senator McGuire to get the
> marijuana growers. They are pushing the WQCB out there as the cops. Fine,
> but making all growers 'Register" even with only seven plants (cut off at
> six) and no discharge is stretching WQCB law (Porter Cologne WQ Act). Talk
> about overkill. They can't separate the problems from our civil liberties.
> When left to it's own device, government nearly always overacts.
>
> Your residence could be filled with legal cases on water law dating to
> 1850 in Ca. Does the Gov and WQCB have the right to just suspend those
> rights? This ruling should comes as no surprise. I do not want to suspend
> my rights and liberties because of a drought. Then, the lack of action on
> grape growers in the form of giving them exemptions on water rules. Gag me
> with an I phone.. Not the system I signed up for.
>
> Should you think it is fair to take away rights because of a draught w/o
> proper procedures and laws? Think again, Both liberal and conservatives
> should have to follow the same rules when gigging the populace. If not,
> we'll be gigged ad nauseum, without rules, and for every imaginable
> legislative cause.
> Ernie
>
> ----- Original Message -----From: Rue Furch <pqrst at monitor.net>To:
> SCWaterCoalition at yahoogroups.com, northcoast at caff.org, North Coast Stream
> Flow Coalition <ncsfc at googlegroups.com>, Sonoma County Coast Surfrider
> <sonomacoastsurfrider at comcast.net>, North Coast Water Network Water
> Network <ncwaternet at lists.mcn.org>, Sonoma Coast Environmental
> <sce at lists.mcn.org>, Redwood Chapter Executive Committee
> <REDWOOD-EXCOM at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>,
> CONS-CNRCC-WATER-COMM at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORGSent: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:08:11
> -0000 (UTC)Subject: A New Court Ruling Could Threaten California’s
> Ability To Regulate Water Use Amid Drought | ThinkProgress
>
> This will cause all manner of ripples ... (none in actual water)
>
> Have a great week,
> Rue
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679659/california-water-court-decision/
>
>
> CLIMATE
> A New Court Ruling Could Threaten California’s Ability To Regulate
> Water Use Amid Drought
> BY NATASHA GEILING
> JUL 13, 2015 12:46PM
>
> CREDIT: AP/RICH PEDRONCELLI
> Sacramento County Superior Court Judge ShelleyAnne Chang told the State
> Water Board that it can’t enforce water cuts without first letting
> farmers and irrigation districts defend their water rights at a hearing.
> Water rights, Chang said, are essentially property rights, and taking them
> away without a hearing violates due process.On Friday, a California court
> issued a ruling that could hinder the state’s ability to issue mass
> water cuts amid its historic drought.
> “The practical implication is that the court has reminded the state
> board that water rights are a form of property rights, and they have to
> use a lot more care when they are trying to regulate them,” Jennifer
> Spaletta, an attorney with the Central Delta Water Agency, told the
> Associated Press.
> Four irrigation districts in California’s Central Valley, including
> the Central Delta Water Agency, filed a petition in late June alleging
> that the California State Water Board violated property rights by issuing
> curtailment notices to farmers without first holding a public hearing.
> California issued notices of curtailments to senior water rights holders
> — those with claims to the water dating before 1914 — in
> mid-June. Almost immediately, several affected water districts filed
> lawsuits challenging the curtailments.
> Chang sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a temporary restraining order on
> the curtailments.
> “The curtailment letters … result in a taking of
> petitioners’ property rights without a pre-deprivation hearing, in
> violation of petitioners’ due process rights,” Chang wrote in
> her ruling. She disagreed with the state’s argument that curtailment
> notices were just notices, not technically orders, and therefore
> don’t require hearings. That line of reasoning, she wrote, is
> “not only misguided, it is also inaccurate.”
> Following the ruling, the State Water Board issued a statement calling the
> order “limited in scope.” The curtailment notices, the board
> maintains, are merely intended to alert water rights holders to the fact
> that there might not be enough water in the system to support all of their
> needs. Before issuing any fines, the board would hold hearings.
> The order, the board said, does not impact the state’s ability to
> enforce water cuts, or crack down on those who divert water illegally.
> “While the order finds fault with the language of the notice, the
> order states: ‘To be clear, [the Water Board and its staff] are free
> to exercise their statutory authority to enforce the water code as to any
> water user, including these petitioners, if it deems them to be in
> violation of any provisions of the water code, so long as the bases for
> said action are not the Curtailment Letters,'” the board said in an
> emailed statement.
> But lawyers for the irrigation districts — and some legal experts
> not involved with the case — say that the court’s ruling
> throws curtailment notices across the state into question. While
> Friday’s case deals with dozens of farmers in the Central Valley,
> California has issued thousands of curtailment notices this year. Stuart
> Somach, a water-law attorney not involved in the case, told the Sacramento
> Bee that the ruling could impact “everybody that received a
> curtailment order” from the State Water Board.
> “I’m not suggesting that [the ruling] has a binding effect on
> every other letter that was issued,” Steve Herum, an attorney whose
> firm represented the West Side Irrigation District in the case, told the
> Los Angeles Times. “But it should cause the state agency to pause at
> least. And I would not be surprised if one or more recipients may rely on
> this opinion to say that the letter has an unconstitutional impediment in
> it.”
> Nearly a dozen irrigation districts have sued the State Water Board,
> according to the Sacramento Bee, with many arguing that the board
> doesn’t have jurisdiction to limit pre-1914 water rights.
> Chang’s decision on Friday did little to clarify that point of
> contention, though she did order further hearings on the issue of
> curtailment letters for the end of the month.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> =========================================
> The Sonoma Coast Environmental Listserver
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE or to otherwise manage your subscribership, visit
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/sce
>
More information about the SCE
mailing list