>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.

Wait till you hear who that farmer took 'his' water rights from! They were there a hell of a lot longer than 100 years.

>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.

You haven't given an example of the State of California taking away someone's rights without due process though.

>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.

Your claim that California is 'acting like petty thieves' is unsubstantiated. You haven't provided any examples of that. There is a difference between what you'd like the law to be and what it is.

I'm open to reading about examples that support your argument if you have them. The realistic situation on the ground is that ranchers/farmers were allowed to act like drunks at an open bar and now the state is managing water more responsibly with respect to ALL the stakeholders in the community.