State Proposing to Increase Fees for Onstream Reservoirs

The State Water Resources Control Board has begun due process toward increasing fees for “on-stream reservoirs.”

This is a fact sheet from the State explaining the different types of reservoirs and which type is exempt from their fees altogether.

onstream_reservoir_factsheet

The SWRCB is having the first fee hearing Monday March 18th in Sacramento.

This link allows you to download the materials for the March 18th Water Rights Stakeholder Meeting.

Cultivators with a seasonal creek that feeds a water storage pond will want to pay attention to this information.

Mar 18 Water Rights Stakeholder Meeting Handouts

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

42 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Abolish illegal revenue collection
Guest
Abolish illegal revenue collection
5 years ago

Who would’ve guessed the state of California wants more fees.!!!!

Willie Caso-Mayhem
Guest
5 years ago

🕯Well that’s not going to make everyone happy.

Brian
Guest
Brian
5 years ago

Seriously? What a bunch of hypocrisy!
Water reservoirs otherwise known as dams.
I thought we were all for protection of the fish and removal of dams? I guess when it comes to cultivating marijuana, let the fish be damned.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

How about this. I have a Class III waterway on my property that surfaces in the winter but never runs off the property or directly into another waterway. Why can’t I put and earthen structure (dam) on this water way and store that water for both dry periods and fire protection?

The water board is not talking about dams on the Eel or Trinity. They are addressing these class III waterways.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

If landowners had spent the time and money to continually pack the water board meetings none of this would be happening right now.

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Low-order watercourses experience relatively more impact from water diversion than do higher-order watercourses, and that can affect aquatic habitat depending on a number of factors such as season, overall flow, and size of the diversion. Safeguards are definitely needed.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Thirdeye

There aren’t talking about diversion. It’s about “onstream” reservoirs.

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Anything that keeps water from flowing down the channel is a water diversion.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago
Reply to  Thirdeye

Actually many of them leak and provide additional water to streams.
At the same time they propose to tax landowners other agencies are promoting them to provide extra water in low flow streams which is why they should be subsidized instead of taxed.
I have a property with a large instream pond and in the summer it leaks faster than it’s refilled.
Also they will not allow summer draws even tough it has no effect on the leakage that is greater than the volume of the stream if the pond than if it did not exist.
And this is not a fish bearing stream and the stream it empties into is not a fish bearing stream.
What it is , is a silt bearing stream due to geology and it helps capture silt as well.
Try to tax me for that and go fuck yourselves.

Brian
Guest
Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

I dreaded the day.

There is another Brian. I’m surprised it took so long.

Hey Brian, to avoid confusion would you be willing to adopt another something for your name, or shall I?

I could take Brian R, or The Brian…but I’ll give you the choice.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

Brian- not related to this thread, rather a past thread. Read this (if you want)and get back to me:
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

“Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.”

Brian
Guest
Brian
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Ullr,

Interesting bit of information regarding our discussion on; Was Hitler Socialist.

I saw this real late. I will catch up to you again on this in near future with some thoughts…

Cheers

shak
Guest
shak
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Bump

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
5 years ago

Yes, let’s make it even harder to store water so there’s even more water issues in the summer! That’ll solve all sorts of problems! …

Flintstone
Guest
Flintstone
5 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

Next, it’ll be catching water from rain gutters as in some communities. Then, catching snowflakes on your tongue. After which, all Peanuts comics depicting Lucy and Snoopy catching snowflakes will be banned.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

In stream ponds actually enhance water quality so to be fined for one is a serious injustice.
Left to their own devices they will keep grabbing money forever.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

Currently you cannot get a permit for a pond if you intend to use it for pot.
The war on pot lives on.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago

If this was a lawful rule it would have been voted on by our representatives in the legislature.

Article 1, Section 1 (there is a reason this is the first rule of how the government is supposed to run…)

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

https://youtu.be/ZwmUH5AGydQ

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

The range of authority of the Water Quality Control Board is defined under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act that was enacted by the California Legislature.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Thirdeye

It still violates the Constitution. Abdication of legislative authority is not a power given to congress.

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Specified delegation of regulatory authority is within the prescribed powers of the legislature.

LostCoastEMP
Guest
LostCoastEMP
5 years ago

More tax’s.? In California? No? Really? I am totally surprised!

Skeptic
Guest
Skeptic
5 years ago

Flint Michigan is still without clean water

C'mon 2020 elections.C'mon justice
Guest
C'mon 2020 elections.C'mon justice
5 years ago

Take a deep look at your political views before the next elections people.These crooks need to be ran outta state like there trying to do to everyone who isn’t rich here!!!

Poor Farmer
Guest
Poor Farmer
5 years ago

You control water you control human activity. Agenda 21/2030 is alive and well.

Native humboldt
Guest
Native humboldt
5 years ago

I bet the state has a running list of everything left to tax. Every year they drop a few new ones into our wallets just to see what they can pull up. Pretty soon there going to get only lint out of mine. California nevet ceases to amaze me. Don’t they even care about what’s going on in France? The yellow coats just got fed up with all the new taxes and snapped. Wake up ca before it’s too late!

Flintstone
Guest
Flintstone
5 years ago

CA forgot about France. Don’t forget your history, less you be doomed to repeat. It’s not “France” or French”, it’s “FREEDOM”. As in fries, or toast, or Canadian.

Central HumCo
Guest
5 years ago

“Our current system entrusts a public wealth into the private hands of self-interested parties who will try hard to skinny out of these conditions with the promise they’ll get to all these things after a market is created,” he cautions. If that’s allowed to happen, then it’s all over. Your children will have to live with the mismanagement of their water.”

Perspective
Guest
Perspective
5 years ago

Next will be taxes on water tanks/storage. YEEEEEEEEEE!

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago

A person who works in permitting says these outrageous money grabs would never have happened if hundreds or thousands of those affected had packed the meetings and spoke out.
Sacramento is a long drive.
But if you packed that room with a few hundred angry landowners it might not pass.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
5 years ago
Reply to  Silverlining

Which is very reason for Article 1 Section 1… we are supposed to have representatives who have a voice in this, for us.

Guest
Guest
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Hardly any of them at the State level are aware that the water they use so freely in cities and towns is not available to rural users. And they don’t care about the problems they create for them. It’s just not important to them.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Fees are in fact taxes.
Even worse is the devaluation of private property due to not being able to use water.
Every County should zero out the property taxes collected from those that have no rights to water they have used for years.

Guest
Guest
Guest
5 years ago
Reply to  Silverlining

You also have to research the various Water Codes from the Federal Clean Water Act ( adopted almost in full by California) through the California water code history/precedents, through California Environmental codes. Surprisingly large numbers of the people in charge of administering the law are pretty shaky on knowledge of what they administer and will tell you they have authority when they don’t. I try to keep below their radar but if I can’t I read, read, read. The codes are pretty much online now. And remember that words used in codes might mean something different than ordinary use. But all words used in regulations should have definitions somewhere.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago

If we could bus down hundreds of stakeholders down to these meetings we could shut this criminal and unconstitutional activity down.

Farce
Guest
Farce
5 years ago

So a drainage gully that runs with water after heavy rains would be a “seasonal watercourse”. And if the gully runs into your reservoir then that means that the state now owns this water and you must pay fees? For the water on your own land? Sounds a lot like the state is claiming all rain water is theirs. This is a major takeover of private property rights. …So let’s all be “good players” and pay our fees like “good players” and “step into the light” and don’t be terrible “black market” water users, mmmkay?

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago
Reply to  Farce

That’s right, as in that’s wrong.

Anon
Guest
Anon
5 years ago

The fees are the least of it it’s the small domestic use permit document /statements that are torture. Multiple pages of crap. They make determinations that are unjust and likely illegal. Long past time for some push back imo

Brian
Guest
Brian
5 years ago

I absolutely believe we should subsidized, accomadate and reward all current and past growers (evironmental polluters)regardless of the fact that they never paid taxes on any of their ill gotten gains while the average law-abiding citizen was foolish enough to work a nine-to-five job, pay their taxes and some of those taxes went to subsidize the supposedly unemployed growers.

Farce
Guest
Farce
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

Nice sarcasm, bro! I also dislike that mentality! But nobody-not even the growers I know are saying this. As a guy who worked hard to get my little piece of heaven I resent the state making increased grabs for my water on my land. Yes- I love the fish and want them protected. But I don’t think it’s necessary to keep beating up us little property owners while encouraging concentration of cannabis into fewer and huger licensed mega-grows. And the state water board is really using this cannabis issue to split the private property rights people and pass some draconian regulations. That should alarm everybody- grower or not.

Silverlining
Guest
Silverlining
5 years ago

You know Kym if you want to go after criminals go after the State Water Board.
I know for a fact and I am not kidding that at least one member is a big time illegal pot dealer that only cares about the money they make.

Taxation without representation
Guest
Taxation without representation
5 years ago

Hey Brian news flash most people that grow or used too payed alot of taxes or they wouldn’t have been able to buy land,cars or anything else.what your pumping is bullshit.maybe they didn’t pay 33 percent tax like the new California order is demanding now but most payed income taxes every year.and for you 9 to 5 ers all these new fees,taxes and the thousand other extortion methods the NEW CALIFORNIA ORDER is coming up with for all of us will bury you-is gonna bury us all !!!!! Taxation without representation !!!!!!!!