216 Cal. App. 4th 766
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Susan River decree governs water rights including direct diversion vs storage and minimum flows above Willow Creek.
- Paragraph 21 governs when Lassen Irrigation Company may exercise its rights; it is not itself a grant of new direct-diversion quantities.
- Irrigation Company has two related rights: direct-diversion under Schedule 6 (36.65 cfs) and storage under paragraph 50; both are subject to thresholds in paragraph 21.
- Historical background includes the 1893 Byers judgment establishing minimum flows and the 1935 agreement and 1936 hydrographic report leading to the Susan River decree.
- Dow argues paragraph 21 authorizes direct diversion up to reservoir capacity (31,500 acre-feet); the trial court agreed, but the appellate court reverses, remanding for correct interpretation.
- The dispute centers on how paragraph 21 interacts with the four classifications of rights and the altered priority it creates for Lassen Irrigation Company vs Schedule 3, 5, and 6 users.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does paragraph 21 authorize direct diversion up to 31,500 acre-feet? | Dow: paragraph 21 allows direct diversion up to reservoir capacity. | Lassen: paragraph 21 permits either direct diversion or storage up to 31,500 acre-feet. | No; direct diversion is measured in cfs (Schedule 6), not acre-feet. |
| How should paragraph 21 be read with the word 'or' and the parenthetical phrase? | Dow: read as 'divert or store up to 31,500 acre-feet' as a single option. | Irrigation: interpret narrowly as an alternative within the sentence. | Read as an alternative to 'divert'—either divert under Schedule 6 (36.65 cfs) or store up to 31,500 acre-feet, not both as direct diversion equal to capacity. |
| Does paragraph 21 alter the priority of Lassen Schedule 6 rights relative to Schedule 3/5 rights? | Dow argues no alteration; standard hierarchy applies. | Irrigation contends paragraph 21 creates altered priority for its rights. | Yes; paragraph 21 alters priority to allow Lassen rights to exercise Schedule 6 or storage notwithstanding certain other allotments. |
| Are Lassen Schedule 6 direct-diversion rights subject to paragraph 21’s conditions? | Dow: Schedule 6 rights are constrained by other schedules. | Irrigation: paragraph 21 clarifies when Lassen can exercise its rights. | Yes; Schedule 6 direct-diversion rights are subject to paragraph 21 and can operate when minimum flows are met and above Willow Creek thresholds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bazet v. Nugget Bar Placers, Inc., 211 Cal. 607 (1931) (storage not a mere means; governing rights context)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 617 (1940) (interpretation of judgments as whole documents)
- L.A. Local etc. Bd. v. Stan’s Drive-Ins, Inc., 136 Cal.App.2d 89 (1955) (examine entire record to determine scope and effect of orders)
- Fleming v. Bennett, 18 Cal.2d 518 (1941) (background for Susan River decree proceedings)
- Los Angeles County-U.S.C. Medical Center v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.3d 454 (1984) (interpretation of phrases and parentheticals in statutory/contract language)