“On Friday, the State Water Resources Control Board announced a curtailment of all post-1914 water rights holders, which will affect about 500 water contracts in Yuba, Sutter and Colusa counties.
“Now, as water managers wait for those curtailment notices to arrive, the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal partners will announce additional responses to the drought at a press conference today in Sacramento.”
“An old idea to supply badly needed water to overdrafted wells northeast of Salinas is bubbling up again, this time in the form of a project that, among other things, could rescue an important Salinas River water right.”
From The Sacramento Bee, in a commentary by Jay Lund, Ellen Hanak and Barton “Buzz” Thompson:
“California is in a major drought, and state and federal regulators will be under pressure to loosen environmental standards that protect native fish. This happened in the 1976-77 and 1987-92 droughts, and the current drought could become much more severe.”
“Water issues facing the North State will be the focus of a Town Hall in Yuba City tonight [Nov. 19] that will feature the state’s top natural resources official. State Natural Resources Secretary John Laird will be on hand for the event hosted by area Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Loma Rica.
“Water users across the state will have reason to listen when Sacramento Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei issues his statement of decision in the consolidated case California Farm Bureau Federation vs.
“The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to the Santa Maria groundwater basin plan, ending 16 years of litigation over the issue and ensuring long-term water supplies for the city and a large portion of the Central Coast.
“Last November, the management plan for the groundwater basin was validated by a state appellate court. After the California Supreme Court later refused to hear the case, some landowners upset with the appellate decision petitioned the nation’s highest court, which on Oct.
“On October 15, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing filed by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority (“TCCA”), which requested rehearing or rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in the case of Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, et al., Case No.
“A dispute between Durham Mutual Water Co. and Butte Creek Country Club ended in an agreement to go to mediation later this month.
“Representatives of Durham Mutual showed up with a backhoe Monday morning to cut off water to the golf course. Ray Lucas and board president John Stewart arrived about 7 a.m., and the rented backhoe shortly thereafter.”
“An advisory committee on Thursday gave the green light to county water officials to request from the state an extension to develop new water projects, a milestone required to keep a key Salinas River water right from being revoked by the state.
“In Young v. State Water Resources Control Board (— Cal.App.4th —, Cal.App. 3 Dist., August 4, 2013), a California court of appeal considered whether the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) has the authority under Water Code section 1831 to issue a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against what it has determined is an unlawful diversion of water, even if the diverter claims a riparian or pre-1914 right.
“Ten years ago, the average East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) consumer was paying $26.09 per month for water. By July 1st of 2014, that number will have nearly doubled to $48.60. The next two years alone will see rates rise 9.75 percent ($3.96 per month) in 2014 and 9.5 percent ($4.19 per month) in 2015.”
From the California Farm Bureau Federation Ag Alert weekly newspaper:
“A disputed fee charged to California water rights holders is invalid, a judge says in a proposed decision, because insufficient connection exists between the amount charged, the benefits received and the burdens imposed by those who pay the bill.
From a Somach Simmons & Dunn Environmental Law & Policy Alert by Daniel Kelly:
“On September 4, 2013, California’s Third Appellate District issued an opinion holding, among other things, that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the statutory authority, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, to determine the validity of riparian and pre-1914 appropriative water rights. Young, et al. v. SWRCB, No. C068559, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 707 (Cal. 3d App. Dist. Sept.