26 Cal.App.5th 844
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- The Scott River (Siskiyou County) is a navigable waterway alleged to be harmed by nearby groundwater pumping from interconnected aquifers outside an existing adjudication area.
- Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) sought declaratory relief that the public trust doctrine requires the County and/or State Water Resources Control Board (Board) to consider impacts on the Scott River when issuing well permits; injunctive relief was dismissed.
- Parties stipulated to undisputed facts and limited the case to narrow legal questions about (1) whether the public trust doctrine applies when groundwater extraction adversely affects a navigable waterway and (2) whether the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) displaced any such duty.
- Trial court held: the public trust applies to surface waters harmed by groundwater extraction; the County must consider public trust impacts when issuing well permits for the Scott River; SGMA does not supplant the public trust; and the Board has authority to administer the public trust.
- County appealed, arguing neither it nor the Board has public trust duties regarding groundwater extractions and that SGMA occupies the field.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the public trust doctrine apply where groundwater extraction adversely affects a navigable waterway? | ELF: Yes — when groundwater pumping harms navigable waters, the doctrine requires consideration/protection of public trust uses. | County: No — groundwater (and non-navigable water) is not a public trust resource; public trust has not been applied to groundwater. | Held: Yes in limited form — public trust protects navigable waters; if groundwater extraction adversely impacts a navigable waterway (the Scott River), the duty to consider/protect trust uses applies. |
| Does SGMA (2014) displace or occupy the field and abolish common-law public trust duties regarding groundwater impacts on navigable waters? | ELF: No — SGMA supplements but does not replace common-law public trust duties; nothing in SGMA shows legislative intent to abolish the trust. | County: Yes — SGMA is a comprehensive statutory scheme transferring groundwater management to local GSAs and thus supplants any common-law duties. | Held: SGMA does not abolish public trust duties; no legislative intent to occupy the field was shown and National Audubon requires harmonizing statute and trust. |
| Does the County, as a political subdivision, have a duty under the public trust when issuing well permits that may affect the Scott River? | ELF: Yes — counties share responsibility as subdivisions of the State and must consider public trust impacts when issuing permits. | County: No — counties lack fiduciary public trust duties over groundwater extractions; SGMA and police powers displace that obligation. | Held: County has a duty to consider public trust impacts on the Scott River when issuing permits; it cannot approve destructive activities without regard to trust preservation. |
| Does the State Water Resources Control Board have authority and a duty under the public trust to regulate groundwater extractions that affect navigable waters? | ELF/Board: Yes — Board has broad water administration authority and is the logical trustee to exercise the State’s public trust responsibilities. | County: No — SGMA and statutory permitting limits restrict the Board’s authority to act under the public trust with respect to groundwater. | Held: The Board has authority and a fiduciary duty to administer public trust protections for navigable waters affected by groundwater extraction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (establishes state title to submerged lands held in trust for the public and limits alienation that impairs navigation and commerce)
- National Audubon Soc. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1983) (California Supreme Court: public trust doctrine survives and must be considered alongside appropriative water rights; state has affirmative duty to protect trust uses when feasible)
- People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. 138 (Cal. 1884) (public trust used to enjoin activities in nonnavigable tributaries that harmed navigable waters)
- In re Water of Hallet Creek Stream Sys., 44 Cal.3d 448 (Cal. 1988) (Board’s authority to protect public trust is independent of permit/license limits)
- City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (Cal. 1970) (Legislature may, in limited and express circumstances, remove lands from the trust; such determinations are conclusive)
- Verdugo v. Target Corp., 59 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 2014) (presumption that statute does not implicitly repeal or supplant common law; field occupation requires clear legislative intent)