> It is one thing if a highway changes the character of your neighborhood, but another if the state makes you move out and demolishes your house to build the road. This is the second scenario.

It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time.

>In the case of groundwater, the state recognizes farmers as the owners of the water rights (so they are not being taken away), but limits farmers from exercising those rights. Simultaneously, they allow other groups without the water rights to use it.

If you want to find some specific examples, that would be helpful. The state also recognizes my rights to the car I own but can make policies on how I use my property including outright banning my use of it. Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America.

I personally think the Central Valley farmers should stop looking for handouts, show some personal responsibility and adapt to reality instead of asking Uncle Sam to bail them out again.