Water Replenishment District of Southern California v. City of Cerritos
202 Cal. App. 4th 1063
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This case concerns unused storage space in the Central Basin, a groundwater reservoir under 277 square miles used by multiple public and private entities.
- Appellants sought to amend a 1965 judgment to allocate Central Basin storage space to those with adjudicated water rights.
- In 2003, the court held storage allocation could be considered but rejected the proposed allocation that would grant a right to store water.
- In 2009, appellants moved to amend again to allocate storage and to authorize interbasin transfers and appointment of a watermaster; the trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the court reviews jurisdictional questions, reversing the trial court and remanding for merits review, without addressing the substantive merits of theProposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal from the consent judgment from a water-right case permissible? | WRD argues appeal is allowed due to reserved jurisdiction. | CBMWD contends Rikuo bars appeal of a consent judgment. | Appeal is permissible; Rikuo does not bar this appeal. |
| Does the trial court have jurisdiction to consider storage allocation in the Central Basin? | WRD relies on law-of-the-case rule and prior WRD I holding that storage allocation falls within retained jurisdiction. | CBMWD argues the 1965 judgment did not allocate storage and thus no jurisdiction to modify. | Court has jurisdiction to consider storage allocation under law of the case. |
| May the court consider transfers of stored water interbasin without creating new water-rights? | WRD argues transfers fall within the broad retained jurisdiction to address future matters. | CBMWD argues interbasin transfers create new rights not adjudicated by the judgment. | The court has jurisdiction to consider the transfer provision on merits. |
| Can WRD be appointed as watermaster under the retained jurisdiction? | WRD argues appointment is permissible as an arm of the court with safeguards. | CBMWD asserts appointment would exceed powers or create conflicts of interest. | Court may appoint WRD as watermaster; safeguards are needed to avoid conflicts. |
| Are due process, uniform replenishment assessments, and non-party rights dispositive on jurisdiction? | Due process concerns do not defeat jurisdiction; notice could be adjusted if needed. | Arguments about uniform assessments and non-party rights rest on merits, not jurisdiction. | Issues are merits-based and do not defeat jurisdiction; remand for merits review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Water Replenishment Dist. v. Southern California Water Co., 109 Cal.App.4th 891 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (storage allocation within retained jurisdiction in water rights litigation)
- City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra, 33 Cal.2d 908 (Cal.2d 1949) (retention of jurisdiction doctrines in water rights)
- Orange County Water Dist. v. City of Colton, 226 Cal.App.2d 642 (Cal.App.2d 1964) (limits on adjudicating future water rights)
- Big Bear Mun. Water Dist. v. Bear Valley Mut. Water Co., 207 Cal.App.3d 363 (Cal.App.3d 1989) (retention of jurisdiction distinguished from ultra vires concerns)
- California American Water v. City of Seaside, 183 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (beneficial use and conservation under Article X, §2)