the
citizens that depend upon this water
source as their only option included the
children who they send to the local
preschools and elementary school most
people who live within this area have
sent their children for up to 8 years of
educational experience. NO supporting
data on what threshold value applied
long term to children in a developmental
stage of their learning experience.
This remains lots of answered questions:
1. Is it
truly 10ug/L? or Is it 8ug/L?
2. What
if they also drink water and consume
food with Arsenic from their own homes
in addition to school?
3. What
about the aquatic habitant’s consumption
along the way of Arsenic springs feeding
area ponds and lakes start to acquire
heavier concentrations many flowing or
runoff to the rivers?
4. Will
the Arsenic flow have a consequence on
the early development of aquatic
organisms to support all habitants
throughout the applicable water body?
Already
shown was the World Health Organization
defines the consequences of Arsenic
long-term effects of ingestion to
healthy effects in addition to the
developmental stages needed within a
positive learning environment. These
levels are not clearly defined nor the
timespan where effects will be evident.
Over an 8 years timespan of increasing
exposing what will occur? These
beneficiaries in the most formative
years of development are being ignored.
In
addition, there has been no answered of
Arsenic concentration in the lakes and
ponds along these groundwater paths nor
the effects on early development of
aquatic organisms along this path. With
no supporting data to determine what
baseline existed prior to the abuse to
determine if Arsenic is present or
increase evident.
One point
is VERY clear
to any prudent observer, with or without
the presence of Arsenic, if the
groundwater is NOT replenishment
to supply these areas early any
development of aquatic organisms cannot
be supported. These beneficiary needs
are being ignored.
Water
Rights
The
Reasonable and Beneficial Use Doctrine
(Reasonable Use Doctrine) is the
cornerstone of California’s complex
water rights laws. All water use must be
reasonable and beneficial regardless of
the type of underlying water right. No
one has an enforceable property interest
in the unreasonable use of water.
Shown
previously were examples of how gross an
abuse
4,500-gallon capacity
hauling truck
25 water hauling trucks
use
3 wells
8,100,000
gallons per day diverted
The
latest pictures from wells diverting in
the presence of more than 200 witnesses to
the activity from where the effected
community were standing on Highway A-12
it is NOTICEABLY clear
that egregious abuse and UNREASONALBE
quantities of groundwater is
continuing. A list could be compiled of
those witnessing all the activity if
necessary.
Even if
the groundwater were used for domestic
purposes supporting data from the
planning department has only 36 valid
permitted parcels in a 20-mile radius of
this well in which domestic water would
be necessary in some capacity for
legitimate occupancy. Since no
steadfast quantity is defined in
groundwater for domestic purposes but
defined is within surface
streams/subterrean streams diversion
permit as being 4,500 gallons I will use
this amount as an indicator to
reasonable domestic use per day needs.
36 valid
permits x 4,500 gallon/day = 162,000
gallons/day
Compared to 8.1 million
gallons used per day in the current
three wells.
8.1
million gallons/day – 162,000 gallon/day
= 7,938 million gallon/day
So, there
is 7.938 million gallons/day that is NOT going
to domestic use or if they are truly
being transported to a legitimate permit
parcels would be 225,000 gallons a day
for each of the 36 parcels edible to
receive. Either way the coin is flipped
the overlaying owner of the groundwater
wells has no right to exceed
reasonability diversion and has violated
the public trust of this
resource for ALL beneficial users. Even
a prudent person could acknowledge
trucks lined up continuously would have
an affected and overlaying landowner has
chosen to ignore at nothing less than a
profiteering ill-gotten gain. ALL the
beneficiary’s rights have been ignored.
Cannabis
Enforcement
According
to the “Cannabis Cultivation Policy
Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis
Cultivation”, dated April 16, 2019, the
purpose of this Cannabis Cultivation
Policy (Policy) is to ensure that the
diversion of water and discharge of
waste associated with cannabis
cultivation does not have a negative
impact on water quality, aquatic
habitat, riparian habitat, wetlands, and
springs.
Per Water
Code section 13149, the principles, and
guidelines:
-
shall include measures to protect
springs, wetlands, and aquatic
habitats from negative impacts of
cannabis cultivation; and
-
may
include requirements that apply to
groundwater diversions where the
State Water Board determines those
requirements are reasonably
necessary.
It has
been pointed out that these principles
have been violated and violated for the
sole purpose of cannabis cultivation. A
matter of record of from the Sheriff’s
office briefing memo dated 08/04/2020
material confiscated and presented
previously 139,131,000 gallons were
used.
Used in
calculation is 15 gallons per day water
over the 150 days to grow on live
plant. In processed material 3 pounds
of material equates to one live plant.
Live
Plant:
60,190
plants x 15
gallons x 150
days = 135,427,500 gallons used
Process material:
4,938
pounds / 3
pounds per plant x 15
gallons x 150
days = 3,703,500 gallons used
Total
Gallons of water used for five (5)
sites: 139,131,000 gallons used
These
cannabis operations have negatively
impacted ALL the beneficiaries and their
needs and rights are being ignored.
|