205 Cal. App. 4th 534
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- The 1961 West Basin Judgment reserved jurisdiction to modify or add obligations for the basin, with ongoing supervision by the Watermaster.
- The 1980 amendment expanded the court’s powers to address storage, allocation, sanctions, and a comprehensive regime beyond extraction rights.
- In 2009, moving parties sought to amend the judgment to allow use of about 120,000 acre-feet of dewatered storage space in the West Basin.
- A stipulation among many basin water rights holders contemplated a 20-year program, governance by a Watermaster, and uniform replenishment assessments within both West and Central Basins.
- The proposed amendment described a detailed storage framework with categories, carryover concepts, and a regional project plan, aiming to maximize beneficial use and basin protection.
- The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, citing CEQA concerns and potential inconsistency with any future EIR, and rejected severance of environmental findings from the storage plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to amend for dewatered storage | Moving parties rely on 1980 amendment to expand jurisdiction. | Opposing parties contend jurisdiction is limited to extraction rights under 1961 judgment. | Court had jurisdiction to amend. |
| CEQA requirements before a motion to amend | CEQA compliance not a prerequisite to amend the judgment. | WRD must obtain an EIR before any amendment affecting environment. | CEQA compliance not required prior to filing the motion. |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on a physical solution | Court should admit evidence and, if needed, propose a physical solution. | Proceedings should ensure consistency with environmental and statutory constraints. | Court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing; remand for full hearing on a physical solution. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lodi v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist., 7 Cal.2d 316 (Cal. 1936) (court may admit evidence and propose physical solutions under water rights doctrine)
- California American Water v. City of Seaside, 183 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (physical solution does not preclude CEQA compliance for future projects)
- City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra, 33 Cal.2d 908 (Cal. 1949) (retention of jurisdiction over future issues in water rights adjudications)
- Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, 23 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2000) (public policy on reasonable beneficial use of water and water rights adjudications)
- Lodi v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (alternative citation for context), 7 Cal.2d 316 (Cal. 1936) (retention of jurisdiction and authority to modify judgments in water disputes)
- City of Glendale v. City of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.2d 68 (Cal. 1943) (principles on adjudication and retention of jurisdiction in water matters)
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, 14 Cal.3d 199 (Cal. 1975) (authority to store water in underground storage structures)
- Central Basin Water Replenishment Dist. v. Southern Cal. Water Co., 109 Cal.App.4th 891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (storage, replenishment, and groundwater management in basins)
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997) (CEQA significance and discretionary projects)