Light v. State Water Resources Control Board
226 Cal. App. 4th 1463
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Regulation 862 restricts frost-protection water diversions in the Russian River system and delegates substantive regulation to WDMPs.
- WDMPs are self-organized governing bodies created by growers and must be approved annually by the Board.
- Board certified an EIR and found regulation necessary to prevent salmonid mortality from abrupt stream drawdowns.
- Riparian and pre-1914 rights are not exempt from Board regulation; the Board can regulate unreasonable water use irrespective of permitting authority.
- The Lights challenge Regulation 862 on authority, delegation, and priority grounds; CEQA challenges were resolved on appeal.
- The Court upholds the Board’s regulatory authority and the adequacy of the EIR, and reverses lower-court writ of mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board authority to regulate unreasonable use | Lights: Board cannot regulate unreasonable use of water. | Light/SWRCB: Board may regulate unreasonable use to prevent waste and protect public trust. | Board has authority to regulate unreasonable use. |
| Authority over riparian and pre-1914 appropriators | Lights: riparian/pre-1914 rights cannot be regulated without permits. | SWRCB can regulate unreasonable use regardless of permit status. | Regulation valid; riparian and pre-1914 rights are subject to regulation to prevent unreasonable use. |
| Delegation to WDMP governing bodies | WDMP delegation constitutes unlawful delegation of regulatory power. | WDMPs administer approved Board policies with Board retention of ultimate discretion. | Delegation permissible with Board approval and standards; no unlawful delegation. |
| Rule of priority | Regulation violates priority by broadly limiting frost-protection use. | Regulation balances public trust use with private rights; WDMPs respect priorities. | On facial challenge, no violation of the rule of priority; specifics await WDMP implementation. |
| CEQA adequacy of the EIR | EIR failed to quantify diversions, minimum flows, and mitigation; insufficient for adequacy. | EIR provided substantial evidence; disclosure adequate under CEQA guidelines. | EIR adequate; substantial evidence supports necessity and impacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forni, 54 Cal.App.3d 743 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (Board authority to regulate reasonable use upheld as policy guidance)
- California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 207 Cal.App.3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (broad legislative authority to regulate reasonable uses of water)
- Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1983) (public trust duties and habitat protection in water allocation)
- El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 142 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (priority and public interest considerations in water regulation)
- Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 186 Cal.App.3d 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (Board's power to take measures to prevent unreasonable use augmented by statute)
- Sun Pacific Farming Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 77 Cal.App.4th 619 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (unlawful delegation and policy formulation considerations)