Millview County Water District v. State Water Resources Control Board
229 Cal. App. 4th 879
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Millview began diverting Russian River water in 2001 under a pre-1914 appropriative right (Waldteufel claim) assigned by Hill and Gomes.
- The Board issued a cease and desist order (CDO) limiting Millview to 15 acre-feet/year (afa) and 1.1 cfs after finding long nonuse (1967–1987) largely forfeited the right.
- The Board considered whether Waldteufel’s pre-1914 right was perfected and whether forfeiture occurred due to nonuse.
- Millview, Hill, and Gomes challenged the CDO, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence of forfeiture; the trial court granted the writ directing set aside.
- The appellate court held the Board has jurisdiction under Water Code section 1831 to issue CDOs for pre-1914 rights and that the forfeiture standard applied by the Board was incorrect; remanded for reconsideration with guidance on scope and forfeiture.
- The Board’s remand options include (a) set aside and allow up to 243 afa (April–October), (b) further hearings on forfeiture, or (c) amend notices and restart proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board has jurisdiction over pre-1914 rights | Millview: Board lacks jurisdiction to regulate pre-1914 rights | Board: jurisdiction to prevent unauthorized diversion under 1831 | Board has jurisdiction under 1831 to regulate pre-1914 rights |
| Proper scope and perfection of the Waldteufel right (243 afa) | Waldteufel’s right perfected at 243 afa by actual use | Board limited to 15 afa due to forfeiture and lack of evidence of perfection | Original perfected scope is 243 afa; 15 afa forfeiture improper without proper conflicting claim evidence |
| Forfeiture standard requires a conflicting claim | Forfeiture occurs only with a competing claim proven | Forfeiture can be found from nonuse even absent formal notice | Forfeiture cannot be affirmed absent a qualifying conflicting claim; remand for proper proof of conflict |
| Due process and notice in administrative proceedings | Notice insufficient on Waldteufel validity and scope | Notice adequate; due process not violated by discovery limits | No due process violation found; remand to reconsider with proper guidance |
| Remedies on remand and scope of reconsideration | Board should restore 243 afa or more based on perfected right | Remand appropriate to reevaluate forfeiture and extent | Remand authorized with three possible paths; Board to reconsider under guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- North Kern Water Storage Dist. v. Kern Delta Water Dist., 147 Cal.App.4th 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (forfeiture requires a conflicting claim and proper five-year measurement)
- Hufford v. Dye, 162 Cal. 147 (Cal. 1912) (right to use water limited to beneficial use; perfection measured by actual use)
- Haight v. Costanich, 184 Cal. 426 (Cal. 1920) (extent of water right measured by beneficial use, not capacity of conveyance)
- Duckworth v. Watsonville W. etc. Co., 158 Cal. 206 (Cal. 1910) (notice-based claims must be perfected by actual use; limits tied to beneficial use)
- Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co., 178 Cal. 450 (Cal. 1918) (storage and use affect rights; adverse uses focus)