Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) v. Armstrong et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | February 25th, 1972

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins by Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "Tehachapi Basin (1, 2) , Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins by Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "Tehachapi Basin (1, 2) , Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are three small groundwater basins in Kern County. Although the basins were adjudicated separately, a single entity, The Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) serves as Watermaster over the three distinct groundwater basins. An interesting finding is that the Cummings adjudication was never completed. Because of this, its users rely on overlying rights with voluntary agreements, and there is no regulated curtailment of withdrawals. There are only a few big users so it is able to track its water use with relative accuracy, but the basin has significant overdraft. Two of its major users (Stallion Springs and Bear Valley) pump water from the basin that is delivered to offsite users, and they offset the export with imported water. Two-thirds of the residents within Cummings Basin are inmates at the California Correctional Institute."

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District v. Austin et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | December 9th, 1970

Note from "An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Tehachapi Basin, Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are three small ground

Note from "An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Tehachapi Basin, Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are three small groundwater basins in Kern County. Although they were adjudicated as individual basins, the local Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District is the Watermaster for all three basins. Adjudication was deemed desirable so water users could tap into newly available imported water and also secure their water rights. To construct transmission facilities, a federal loan was needed, and adjudication was necessary to assure repayment."

Temporary Restraining Order in Kings County Farm Bureau et al v. California State Water Resources Control Board

Superior Court of California, County of Kings | July 11th, 2024

Term 91: Stored Water Bypass Requirements

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 8th, 2012

Pursuant to numerous Board decisions (D-1485, D-1641, Order 2001-05), the Projects are required to release stored water to meet water quality standards in the Delta (incl

Pursuant to numerous Board decisions (D-1485, D-1641, Order 2001-05), the Projects are required to release stored water to meet water quality standards in the Delta (including flow and salinity standards) where natural flows are insufficient. The obligation was originally placed on the Projects as an interim measure pending future studies of how the obligation to meet water quality standards would be shared with other appropriators. In return for resolving Project protests on subsequent applications to appropriate water, Term 91 was developed and made a condition to permits issued after 1965. Term 91 prohibits diversions by these Permittees when natural and abandoned flows to the Delta are insufficient to meet the water quality standards and the Projects are supplementing such flows with previously stored water to meet the standards. The purpose of this report is to explore the enhanced use and more vigorous enforcement of diversion curtailments as a means to achieve flow standards. This subject matter is relevant to the Delta even through the Projects are under a present and legal obligation to meet existing flows standards.

The California Water Atlas

Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) | October 24th, 1979

This book sets out to tell the biggest story in the richest and most populous state in the Union. Water lies at the basis of the modern prosperity of California, and th

This book sets out to tell the biggest story in the richest and most populous state in the Union. Water lies at the basis of the modern prosperity of California, and the history of the state is in large part the history of water development. The problems of water supply and delivery for the future are emerging among the critical issues facing not only California but the entire American Southwest over the next ten years. And yet, at a time when environmental consciousness is high and complex problems of world energy supply and international finance are part of the normal fare in our daily newspapers, water remains probably the least popularly understood of our natural resources.

The Definition of Environmental Justice and the Designation of the California Office of Planning and Research as Coordinating Agency for Environmental Justice

State of California | November 18th, 2019

The doctrine of reserved water rights. What are federal and tribal reserved water rights?

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 2009

The doctrine of reserved water rights evolved to ensure that Indian reservations and public lands set aside by the federal government would have sufficient water to fulfi

The doctrine of reserved water rights evolved to ensure that Indian reservations and public lands set aside by the federal government would have sufficient water to fulfill the purposes for which they were established. Whereas most western water rights (state-based appropriative rights) have a priority date based on when water was first put to beneficial use, federal reserved water rights have a priority date that goes back at least as far as the date on which the lands were set aside. The reserved water rights doctrine is rooted in a number of judicial decisions, beginning with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has come to be called the Winters Doctrine. The case of Winters vs United States involved a dispute between Native Americans of the Ft. Belknap Reservation and nonnative settlers over the use of the Milk River in Montana. When the water use of the settlers upstream from the reservation interfered with the Indians' water need for large Irrigation diversions, the U.S. government filed a lawsuit on the reservation's behalf. The Winters decision held that when Congress created the Ft. Belknap Reservation, sufficient water to make the Indians a "pastoral and civilized People" was implicitly set aside. Therefore, although the normative settlers had perfected their water rights under Montana state law, the water right of the Indians of Ft. Belknap was prior, or senior in use.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Claims of Property Rights “Takings”

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | January 7th, 2013

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) has long been one of the major flash points in debates over government interference with property rights. This report outlines th

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) has long been one of the major flash points in debates over government interference with property rights. This report outlines the ESA provisions most relevant to the act’s impacts on private property and surveys the major ESA-relevant principles of Fifth Amendment takings law. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment promises “just compensation” when government actions “take” property. The report then summarizes the court decisions on whether particular government actions (or inaction) based on the ESA “take” private property under the Fifth Amendment. The cases to date address several kinds of ESA impacts on private property: (1) restrictions on land uses that might adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened, and mitigation conditions to offset the impacts of development; (2) administrative delays; (3) reductions in water delivery or allowable water diversion to preserve lake levels or instream flows needed by listed fish (currently the most active area of ESA takings litigation); (4) restrictions on the defensive measures a property owner may take to protect his/her property from listed animals; and (5) restrictions on commercial dealings in listed species. To date, only one of the 18 ESA-based takings cases disclosed by research, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States, has found a taking. However, two cases, Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States and Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, have yet to be finally resolved and may or may not result in holdings that takings occurred.

The Enduring Role of Tribes in the Colorado River Basin

Water and Tribes Initiative | July 1st, 2019

The purpose of this policy brief is to explain the origin, rationale, and purpose of the Water & Tribes Initiative in the Colorado River Basin. As explained more fully be

The purpose of this policy brief is to explain the origin, rationale, and purpose of the Water & Tribes Initiative in the Colorado River Basin. As explained more fully below, the long-term objectives of this Initiative are to: • Enhance the capacity of tribes to advance their needs and interests with respect to water management in the basin; and • Advance sustainable water management through collaborative decision-making.

The Federal-Tribal Trust Relationship: Its origin, nature, and scope

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 2009