Support your right to haul water.

Share with:


Mail a signed personal letter to Assemblyman Obernolte supporting AB 366 and 367, to reinstate your right to have water brought to your property by a licensed hauler from a certified source. We may need to write in support again as the bill travels through legislative channels and byways.

Here’s the info his office sent about the bills, in case you did not see it :​ Last year, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 1263, which prohibits the permitting of a single home or cabin where the source of water supply is hauled water. That bill was retroactive in nature, ultimately rendering the land worthless by taking away California landowners’ ability to build on land located in areas without adequate water infrastructure. Assembly Bill 366 would exempt property owners of existing parcels from this law and allow them to build on their property, even if legally obtained hauled water is the listed source of water.

“This bill [AB 366] is vital to protect those property owners who purchased land before the provisions in SB 1263  take effect. My constituents and other rural Californians should have the right to build a home on their own land,” said Assemblyman Obernolte. “It’s unreasonable for the state to punish these landowners for having property that isn’t connected to a municipal water system.”

Assemblyman Obernolte also introduced AB 367 which focuses specifically on ensuring a home destroyed by fire is allowed to be rebuilt.
“Last year my district was devastated by the Blue Cut Fire,” Assemblyman Obernolte said. “This bill is crucial to allow homeowners who rely on hauled water to rebuild their home if it is tragically destroyed by a fire.”

​Why write? THE BAN HURTS JOHNSON VALLEY. Denying building permits unless you drill a well discourages many newcomers from buying property at all. The increase in the number of wells drilled by current landowners was startling – a trend with unpredictable but possible ​adverse outcomes for the aquifer. And well owners are up the creek if well failure or power failure occurs. Who will bring water if water haulers are gone? The County? The State? The California Legislature? The prospect of piped-in water to a community so sparsely  ​populated and widely scattered has to be described as dim. Dividing astronomical bonded indebtedness among us has to be described as a dim prospect, also.

The “health reasons” often cited as the reason for banning hauled water won’t hold water, so to speak. Do town folks want to drive ​everyone out of the rural areas? What other motiv​es​ can you suggest for a ban so stupid and counter-productive in a State which encourages, no, requires us to conserve water? (Those who rely on hauled water are proven to be much more frugal in their use of water than well owners or those on a pipeline.)

Now that the formerly unwritten County ban is set down in writing by the State, every rural resident must get into this. So add your support to the letters for Obernolte now.

If you have a personal story of being denied a building permit, or a concern with what will happen to the value and/or sellability of your property, or what will happen when water haulers are all out of business, tell him!

Mail to:
Assemblyman Jay Obernolte,
State Capitol Office: Room 4116,
Sacramento, CA 94249.

By the way, if you have been denied a building permit or lost a prospect for buying your property because of this situation, let me know even if you have no written proof. I will forward the info to people ​to whom it may be useful.

Betty Munson

Share with:

Liked it? Take a second to support Cactusthorns on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

3 Responses to Support your right to haul water.

  1. Jordan Lee May 11, 2017 at 2:20 am

    The revisions of this bill since this article was written are just as bad as the initial ban. The revisions do nothing to serve new development and only help any development before Jan 1 2017… but in order to develop before 2017 you need a building permit and the only way to get a permit is to have a viable source of water – which would be a well or a utility. So why would anyone who had either of those water sources prior to Jan 1 2017 care or need hauled water? If this was supposed to encourage new development I don’t see how it will – the ability to deny new development is STILL in the 2nd part of the bill along with a subjective contingency of fire response times from local fire departments. The whole thing is a major disappointment.

  2. Jordan Lee July 6, 2017 at 6:44 am

    AB-366 was just recently completely gutted and they dismantled the entire proposal. Instead, they used the AB-366 bill to create an entirely different bill that would reimburse money for “exhibit and rental equipment.” Makes absolutely no sense that we have voiced our concerns only to have it completely gutted at the Committee discussion level because the Committee Chair didn’t like that we want hauled water – the Chair is the Senator who created the hauled water ban in the first place. We need to collectively join together and demand this to be addressed.

  3. Vicki Kea January 31, 2018 at 2:25 pm

    I’ve attached an article from 2016. It appears that the banning building if hauled water is to be used was meant to stop large-scale developers from creating their own small water districts, citing health issues with the water. They threw us little guys under the bus by putting us under the umbrella of “developers.” Who the hell is that dimwit senator anyway? Find a cabin with no well and no public water and plop him out there. He’d be crying to see one of those water trucks.


Leave a Reply

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