26 Cal. App. 5th 844
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- The Scott River (Siskiyou County) is a navigable waterway alleged to be harmed by nearby groundwater extraction; the case seeks declaratory relief only, not injunctive relief or challenges to specific permits.
- Parties stipulated to limited undisputed facts and confined the litigation to whether (1) the public trust doctrine requires the County/State Water Resources Control Board (Board) to consider effects of groundwater pumping on Scott River public-trust uses, and (2) whether the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) displaced that duty.
- Trial court ruled (a) the public trust applies where groundwater extraction adversely affects a navigable waterway; (b) the County must consider public-trust impacts when issuing well permits; (c) SGMA and prior groundwater statutes do not supplant the common-law public trust duty; and (d) the Board has authority to administer the public trust.
- County appealed, arguing (i) the public trust does not extend to groundwater impacts, (ii) SGMA occupies the field and abolishes common-law duties, and (iii) counties lack fiduciary public-trust duties; ELF and the Board defended the trial court judgment.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, rejected justiciability concerns, and affirmed: public trust duties apply to protect navigable waters from adverse impacts of groundwater extraction and SGMA does not, on its face, displace those duties.
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 — the trust protects navigable surface waters harmed by groundwater pumping. | County: No — groundwater is nonnavigable and not a public-trust resource; no prior case extends the trust to groundwater. | Yes — public trust applies to protect navigable waters (Scott River) when groundwater extraction adversely impacts them. |
| Does the County have a public-trust duty when issuing well permits to consider impacts on Scott River? | ELF: County, as a state subdivision, shares trustee duties and must consider/protect public-trust uses when feasible. | County: It lacks fiduciary duty; its permitting/police powers and SGMA obligations preclude additional common-law duties. | Yes — County must consider public-trust impacts of well permits affecting Scott River. |
| Does the Board have authority/duty under the public trust to regulate groundwater extractions that harm the Scott River? | ELF/Board: Yes — Board has broad authority over state water resources and is the logical trustee-agent to administer the trust. | County: SGMA and Water Code limit Board authority; Board lacks power over groundwater public-trust matters. | Yes — Board has authority and duty, assuming public-trust applicability to the facts alleged. |
| Did SGMA (2014) preempt or occupy the field, thereby abolishing common-law public-trust duties regarding groundwater impacts? | County: SGMA is a comprehensive regime transferring management to local GSAs and thereby supplants common-law duties. | ELF/Board: SGMA supplement, does not displace, the common-law trust; SGMA expressly preserves other law and has limited coverage/timing. | No — SGMA does not, on its face, displace or abolish public-trust fiduciary duties to consider impacts on navigable waters. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (federal) (establishes state-held public trust in navigable waters that cannot be alienated to private parties)
- National Audubon Soc. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1983) (California Supreme Court: public trust doctrine imposes affirmative state duty to protect navigable waters and must be considered alongside appropriation law)
- People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. 138 (Cal. 1884) (public trust can constrain activities on nonnavigable tributaries that harm navigable waters)
- City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (Cal. 1970) (Legislature may free specific tidelands from the trust; such express legislative determinations are conclusive)
- Verdugo v. Target Corp., 59 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 2014) (statutes do not impliedly supplant common law absent clear legislative intent to occupy the field)