Review of CDFW Recommendations for the 2022 Readoption of Drought Emergency Regulations on the Scott River and Recommendations for Future Management During Extreme Drought Conditions

Siskiyou Farm Bureau | August 31st, 2022

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

Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository | January 19th, 2002

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 P

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

Revised Water Right Decision 1641

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 29th, 1999

Royce Tipton and the Hydrology of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico

John Fleck | May 26th, 2025

Ruling on Motions for Preliminary Injunction in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. California Department of Water Resources

Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento | June 20th, 2024

Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. Bcv-22-103220-Gap, Bring Back the Kern et al v. City of Bakersfield et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | October 30th, 2023

San Antonio Water Company v. Foothill Irrigation Company, et al

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | July 25th, 1958

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "The Cucamonga Basin is a small groundwater basin located in San Bernardino Co

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "The Cucamonga Basin is a small groundwater basin located in San Bernardino County. In the 1950s, approximately 25 parties, mostly small local water companies and several individual water users, filed an action to adjudicate the rights to the basin’s groundwater and certain surface waters tributary to the basin. The subsequent adjudication resulted in a 1958 Decree that contains some provisions for the metering and recording of water production, inspection of records, prohibitions against new water production, and potential reductions in water production. The court did not appoint an official Watermaster for the basin, and annual reports are not required. Since adjudication, water use in the basin has shifted from primarily agricultural use to primarily municipal use. Today there are three main water agencies — Cucamonga Valley Water District, San Antonio Water Company, and West End Consolidated Water Company — that hold nearly all of the adjudicated rights in the basin and jointly manage the basin pursuant to the 1958 Decree. Studies differ regarding the condition of the basin. A 2007 Metropolitan Water District review indicates that water levels in key wells have decreased about 120 feet and that the basin is experiencing long-term decline. Basin managers point to production data that also shows water production in the basin can trend below the total allocated rights production data."

San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority, vs. City of Banning, et al.

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | February 4th, 2004

Science be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River

University of Arizona Press | November 26th, 2019

Science Be Dammed is an alarming reminder of the high stakes in the management—and perils in the mismanagement—of water in the western United States.  It seems decep

Science Be Dammed is an alarming reminder of the high stakes in the management—and perils in the mismanagement—of water in the western United States.  It seems deceptively simple: even when clear evidence was available that the Colorado River could not sustain ambitious dreaming and planning by decision-makers throughout the twentieth century, river planners and political operatives irresponsibly made the least sustainable and most dangerous long-term decisions. Arguing that the science of the early twentieth century can shed new light on the mistakes at the heart of the over-allocation of the Colorado River, authors Eric Kuhn and John Fleck delve into rarely reported early studies, showing that scientists warned as early as the 1920s that there was not enough water for the farms and cities boosters wanted to build. Contrary to a common myth that the authors of the Colorado River Compact did the best they could with limited information, Kuhn and Fleck show that development boosters selectively chose the information needed to support their dreams, ignoring inconvenient science that suggested a more cautious approach. Today water managers are struggling to come to terms with the mistakes of the past. Focused on both science and policy, Kuhn and Fleck unravel the tangled web that has constructed the current crisis. With key decisions being made now, including negotiations for rules governing how the Colorado River water will be used after 2026, Science Be Dammed offers a clear-eyed path forward by looking back. Understanding how mistakes were made is crucial to understanding our contemporary problems. Science Be Dammed offers important lessons in the age of climate change about the necessity of seeking out the best science to support the decisions we make.

Scott River Ajudication Decree

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 30th, 1980

The water rights set forth in this decree consist of (1) all surface water rights in the Scott River stream system, as defined in paragraph 2, excluding springs or standi

The water rights set forth in this decree consist of (1) all surface water rights in the Scott River stream system, as defined in paragraph 2, excluding springs or standing pools not specifically included in this decree which do not contribute to a flowing stream or have no natural outlet, and excluding water which naturally sustains mountain meadows and other native vegetation without artificial diversion from a flowing stream; (2) all rights to supporting underflow and (3) all rights to ground water that i s interconnected with tlie Scott River as delineated on the State Water Resources Control Board map, hereinafter referred to as the SWRCB map, and as defined in Paragraph 4.