DEH's water-system story does not begin in 1990.

Five archive sets. 512 inventoried files. The record trail is presented before conclusions — verified facts, reported statements, inferences, and unknowns are kept separate throughout.

The first error: well labels are not land identifiers

A single flaw appears before the reader even reaches the disputed permit history: Well #1 and Well #2 are not Assessor's Parcel Numbers. They are not postal addresses. They are not recorded legal descriptions. They are not deeds. They are not easements. They are labels.

That distinction matters because a water well is a physical improvement located on land. To identify a well with documentary confidence, the record must tie the well label to a fixed location: the parcel, the physical address if one exists, the legal description, the coordinates, the owner history, the permit file, the completion report, the easement rights, and the operating-system record.

If County research directives require property records to be searched by address or APN, then DEH cannot resolve a historical well dispute merely by repeating Well #1, Well #2, or W3. The question is not what label DEH used. The question is whether DEH preserved the crosswalk proving where each well was located, which parcel it served, who had authority over the land, and how that source became part of the regulated system.

This also exposes the flaw in a records-request process. A Public Records Act request framed only around Well #1, Well #2, W1, W2, or W3 can unintentionally inherit the County's own map-labeling problem. Those labels do not identify land. They do not identify an APN. They do not identify a postal address. They do not identify the owner of record or the legal authority for the well's use.

The fixed land identifier is the controlling request. The controlling records are the records that connect each well label to a fixed location on land: APN, site address, legal description, coordinates, owner of record, easement or permission, construction permit, well completion report, source approval, inspection file, electrical service record, and permit-to-operate record for each labeled well.

In other words, the public question is not merely whether DEH has a file labeled Well #1 or Well #2. The question is whether DEH can produce the land-based records proving what those labels actually mean.

A well number without the land identifier is not proof of location. It is only the beginning of the question.

October 18, 1973: start with the people and the wells

On October 18, 1973, a small group met under the Weber Heights Non-Profit Association name. The 1973 association record matters because it shows how the group described the water arrangement before DEH's later 1990 well story entered the record.

The people identified in the early association record included Frank Murphy, Jack Perryman, Vergil Stranberg, Lorene Cantrell, Gladys Murphy, and Dorothy Armstrong.

That absence matters because one of the two original wells was identified with the Kitley lot. Years later, the Kitley/Kelley parcel became part of a property-rights dispute, a lis pendens sequence, and the recorded 1985 Grant of Easement.

This story therefore does not begin with DEH in 1990. It begins with the association's own earlier description of two wells and with a property owner tied to one of those wells who was not shown among the people governing the association at the October 1973 meeting.

The well count exposes the record error

If two wells already existed in the 1973 Weber Heights history, they do not disappear simply because a later County file begins using different well numbers, different parcel references, or a different regulatory narrative.

The historical record therefore creates a four-well problem. Two wells are already identified in the 1973 association history. DEH later carried a 1990 well narrative. The physical well history associated with APN 571-040-002 also has its own location, construction, and operating history.

But the later DEH map history refers to W1, W2, and W3, and DEH correspondence later described W3 being renamed as Well #2 after W1 was no longer in use. The archive also contains requests asking DEH to reconcile those map records and provide the source, author, and approval records for the W1/W2/W3 configuration.

1990 is where the paper story and the physical story separate

Riverside County Ordinance 682 required a written application and a valid permit before drilling a water well. The 1990 permit file begins with the 1990 well permit application, and the archive treats that file as central because later County records used that permit history as part of the Weber water-system narrative.

The subject property, however, is APN 571-040-002, shown in the APN 571-040-002 record and on Assessor Map 571-04. The existing archive pages state that the original Permit 16245 application and permit listed 44135 Perryman Lane / APN 571-030-037, and that later versions and later records introduced different APNs and addresses.

That is where the record splits. One set of documents points to the County permit file. Another set points to private land, private ownership, and appurtenant easement rights. The missing document is the one that lawfully joins those histories together.

The easement trail keeps the question on the land

The recorded property-rights history does not stop with association language. It includes the 1985 Grant of Easement, the 1990 Campbell Grant of Easement, and the later 1992/1993 Grant of Easement. Those instruments matter because wells, water rights, ingress, egress, pump facilities, pipelines, and maintenance rights attach to land through recorded instruments, not through repetition of an association name.

The 2002 bylaws use the Weber Valley Heights Water Association name and state water-system policy, maintenance, and repair objectives. They also state that water rights remain with the land. If the water rights remain with the land, then the claimed association authority must still be traced back to landowners and recorded property documents.

DEH inspection records gave the error administrative weight

By 2024 and 2025, DEH inspection reports identified the system as a State Small Water System, listed 44135 Perryman Lane and APN 571-040-004, and described two wells, two pressure zones, and six connections on each well. The 2024 inspection report also states that Well No. 1 had no construction records and that permit #29372 was assigned for inventory purposes only. The 2025 inspection report then states that Well #1 permit and completion records were recently located and describes Well #2 as constructed under permit #29371.

Those inspection reports prove County recognition. They do not, by themselves, prove ownership, easement rights, permit transfer authority, or lawful control over APN 571-040-002.

The public question is no longer whether people used water or whether DEH inspected a system. The question is how DEH's later regulated-system story can be correct when the well count, parcel identity, permit history, and easement trail still do not reconcile.

Show the document that reconciles the wells.