Document Details

Review of the Laws Establishing the SWRCB’s Permitting Authority over Appropriations of Groundwater Classified as Subterranean Streams and the SWRCB’s Implementation of those Laws

Joe Sax, | January 19, 2002
Summary

Introduction
1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality
2. Questions Addressed in this Report
3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board

Part I: The Legal Background of the Water Commission Act
1. The Pomeroy Case
2. The Pomeroy Case in its Historical Context
3. Doing the Job Pomeroy Failed to Do: Katz v. Walkinshaw and Los Angeles v. Hunter

Part II: The Statutory Response
1. The Water Commission Act of 1913
2. Subsequent Legislative Developments

Part III: The Board’s Current Implementation of the Law Governing Subterranean Streams Flowing Through Known and Definite Channels
1. Recent Board Decisions
a. Garrapata Creek
b. Draft Decision, Pauma and Pala Basins
2. Older Board Decisions
a. Sheep Creek, San Bernardino County
b. Stony Creek, Colusa County
c. Chorro and Morro Creeks, San Luis Obispo County
d. Tia Juana River, San Diego County
e. Carmel River, Monterey County
f. Sacramento River Groundwater Transfer, Yolo County
g. San Luis Rey River, San Diego County (Mission and Bonsall Basins)

Part IV: Groundwater Law in Other States
1. Arizona
2. Other Western States
3. Nebraska
4. Oregon
5. Colorado

Part V: Management of Groundwater Outside Water Code § 1200
1. Overlying Uses of Groundwater
2. Other Sources of Authority Over Use of Groundwater
a. Constitution Article X, § 2, Water Code § 100, The Public Trust, and
Water Code § 275
b. Remedies for Impairment of Water Rights

Part VI: Should the Legal Test Be Changed?

Appendices
A: Draft of Proposed Water Commission Bill
B-1: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as introduced Jan. 23, 1913).
B-2: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as amended in Senate May 10, 1913)
C: Water Commission Act of 1913
D: Transcripts of Hearings on Proposed Water Commission Bill
E: Memos from Technical Advisory Committee Members

Product Description

Introduction
1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality
2. Questions Addressed in this Report
3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board

Part I: The Legal Background of the Water Commission Act
1. The Pomeroy Case
2. The Pomeroy Case in its Historical Context
3. Doing the Job Pomeroy Failed to Do: Katz v. Walkinshaw and Los Angeles v. Hunter

Part II: The Statutory Response
1. The Water Commission Act of 1913
2. Subsequent Legislative Developments

Part III: The Board’s Current Implementation of the Law Governing Subterranean Streams Flowing Through Known and Definite Channels
1. Recent Board Decisions
a. Garrapata Creek
b. Draft Decision, Pauma and Pala Basins
2. Older Board Decisions
a. Sheep Creek, San Bernardino County
b. Stony Creek, Colusa County
c. Chorro and Morro Creeks, San Luis Obispo County
d. Tia Juana River, San Diego County
e. Carmel River, Monterey County
f. Sacramento River Groundwater Transfer, Yolo County
g. San Luis Rey River, San Diego County (Mission and Bonsall Basins)

Part IV: Groundwater Law in Other States
1. Arizona
2. Other Western States
3. Nebraska
4. Oregon
5. Colorado

Part V: Management of Groundwater Outside Water Code § 1200
1. Overlying Uses of Groundwater
2. Other Sources of Authority Over Use of Groundwater
a. Constitution Article X, § 2, Water Code § 100, The Public Trust, and
Water Code § 275
b. Remedies for Impairment of Water Rights

Part VI: Should the Legal Test Be Changed?

Appendices
A: Draft of Proposed Water Commission Bill
B-1: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as introduced Jan. 23, 1913).
B-2: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as amended in Senate May 10, 1913)
C: Water Commission Act of 1913
D: Transcripts of Hearings on Proposed Water Commission Bill
E: Memos from Technical Advisory Committee Members

Add to Downloads

Become a member to access this feature

Get Document


Review-of-the-Laws-Establishing-the-SWRCBs-Permitting-Authority

Keywords:

Groundwater Exchange, streams, water rights