Lessons from the Russian River Frost Protection Litigation PAUL STANTON KIBEL Golden Gate University School of Law Water and Power Law Group Panel on The Conflict Between Vineyards and Salm on ID: 656801
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "California Reasonable Use Law:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
California Reasonable Use Law:Lessons from the Russian River Frost Protection Litigation
PAUL STANTON KIBELGolden Gate University School of Law / Water and Power Law Group Panel on The Conflict Between Vineyards and SalmonNovember 2014 CLE Conference on California Water LawSan Francisco, California
1Slide2
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton Kibel2014 California Court of Appeal Decision in Light v. SWRCBFoundation of California Reasonable Use Law
► Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution (“The right to water…does not and shall not extent to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water.”)► Section 100 of the California Water Code (“The right to water…does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water.”)2Slide3
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton Kibel2014
California Court of Appeal Decision in Light v. SWRCBApplication of California Reasonable Use Law to Riparian Water Rights► 1926 California Supreme Court Decision in Herminghaus (impetus for 1928 Constitutional Amendment on reasonable use of water) involved riparian water rights► Petitioner in 1976 California Court of Appeal Decision in Forni (upholding application of California reasonable use law to frost protection diversions) involved challenge by riparian water rights holder
3Slide4
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton Kibel2014 California Court of Appeal Decision in Light v. SWRCB
Causal Link Between Salmon Kill-Offs and Frost Protection Diversions► Per Forni, SWRCB not required to establish causal link with salmon mortality to regulate simultaneous frost protection diversions that significantly reduce instream flow pursuant to California reasonable use law► NMFS investigations and analysis found simultaneous frost protection diversions in 2008 contributed to contemporaneous salmon fish kill (NMFS expertise on salmon issues as substantial evidence to support determination of causal link)
4Slide5
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton Kibel2014 California Court of Appeal Decision in Light v. SWRCB
CEQA Compliance and Analysis of Impacts of“Non-Frost Protection” Diversions on Russian River SalmonSWRCB regulation (proposed CEQA action) narrowly tailored to address particular fisheries effects in Russian River watershed of simultaneous diversions for frost protection rather than more general fishery effects of all diversions in the watershed
5Slide6
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton Kibel Pre-Light Reliance on California Reasonable Use Law to Regulate Agricultural Water Use to Protect Instream Resources
1986 Racanelli Decision in United States v. SWRCB (182 Cal.App.3d 82)“Here, the [SWRCB] determined that changed circumstances revealed in new information about the adverse effects of the project upon the Delta necessitated revised water quality standards. Accordingly, the [SWRCB] had the authority to modify the projects’ permits to curtail their use of water on the ground that the projects’ use and diversion of the water had become unreasonable.” Id. at 130.
6Slide7
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton Kibel Pre-Light Reliance on California Reasonable Use Law to Regulate Agricultural Water Use to Protect Instream Resources
1980 Decision on Alternate Point of Diversion in Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (26 Cal.3d 183)California Supreme Court holds that SWRCB and California Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to prevent unreasonable methods of water diversion, and on this basis grants petitioner leave to amend complaint to allege proposed point of diversion was unreasonable given evidence that alternative point of diversion reduced impact on fisheries
7Slide8
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton KibelPre-Light Reliance on California Reasonable Use Law to Regulate Agricultural Water Use to Protect Instream Resources
1976 California Court of Appeal Decision in SWRCB v. Forni (54 Cal.App.3d 743(“…the claim that respondent’s direct diversion of water constitutes an… unreasonable method of use of water is predicated on the very premises that the direct pumping results in a great temporary scarcity of water during the crucial frost period…The direct diversion of water for frost protection in the crucial period constitutes an…unreasonable method of use of water within the purview of the Constitution and statutory provisions.”
8Slide9
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton KibelHolding in Light as Precedent for Expanded Use of California Reasonable Use Law
2011 Delta Watermaster Report to SWRCB on The Reasonable Use Doctrine & Agricultural Water Use Efficiency“The underlying premise of this report is that the inefficient use of water is an unreasonable use of water. Accordingly, the Reasonable Use Doctrine is available prospectively to prevent general practices of inefficient water use…”9Slide10
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton KibelHolding in Light as Precedent for Expanded Use of California Reasonable Use LawCalifornia’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Enacted August 2014)
► Uncodified Findings (“The people of the state have a primary interest in the protection, management and reasonable beneficial use of the water resources of the state, both surface and underground…”)► Section 10720.1(b) on Legislative Intent: (“To enhance local management of groundwater consistent with…Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.”)► Section 10720.5(a) (“Groundwater management pursuant to this part shall be consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.”
10Slide11
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton KibelHolding in Light as Precedent for Expanded Use of California Reasonable Use Law
California’s July 2014 Drought Emergency Regulations23 CCR §878.1(c) (“Given the essential nature of water in sustaining human life, use even under a more senior right for any other purpose when domestic and municipal supplies required for minimum health and safety needs cannot be met is a waste and unreasonable use under the California Constitution, Article X, § 2.”)11Slide12
California Reasonable Use LawPaul Stanton KibelFinal Thoughts on the “Terms” of the Reasonable Use Debate
California Reasonable Use Doctrine Versus California Reasonable Use Law► Black’s Law Dictionary Defines “Doctrine” as a “legal principle that is widely adhered to”► Black’s Law Dictionary Defines “Law” as “The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action”
12