Yes it does, but there is obviously a legal line which can be crossed and be considered a government seizure of property.
The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 [1] is the example for groundwater usage, currently being litigated all over the state.
It doesn't change groundwater rights, but sets up agencies with the power to allocate usage in penalties which ignore the groundwater rights or seniority of rights. A farmers who have been somewhere for a 100 years can and are being prevented from using water, while recently developed communities or other stakeholders get a pass.
>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.
What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process.
Where established groundwater rights exist, this is clearly the case of the house being demolished to make way for the freeway, not making rules for the color of your paint. It is taking something that is recognized property of one person who is using it, and then using it for another purpose.
I personally think that citizens of California should show some responsibility and buy water from those with rights, instead of acting like petty thieves. If the state is free to systemically ignore its own laws, then individuals should be free do the same. However, that lawless society is not one I would want to live in.
https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2018/09/04/groundwater-...
https://mavensnotebook.com/2021/01/13/sgma-in-action-challen...