Drought, Water Law, and the Origins of California's Central Valley Project

University of Nevada Press | October 27th, 2016

This book is an account of how water rights were designed as a key part of the state’s largest public water system, the Central Valley Project. Along sixty miles of the

This book is an account of how water rights were designed as a key part of the state’s largest public water system, the Central Valley Project. Along sixty miles of the San Joaquin River, from Gustine to Mendota, four corporate entities called “exchange contractors” retain paramount water rights to the river. Their rights descend from the days of the Miller & Lux Cattle Company, which amassed an empire of land and water from the 1850s through the 1920s and protected these assets through business deals and prolific litigation. Miller & Lux’s dominance of the river relied on what many in the San Joaquin Valley regarded as wasteful irrigation practices and unreasonable water usage. Economic and political power in California’s present water system was born of this monopoly on water control. Stroshane tells how drought and legal conflict shaped statewide economic development and how the grand bargain of a San Joaquin River water exchange was struck from this monopoly legacy, setting the stage for future water wars. His analysis will appeal to readers interested in environmental studies and public policy.

Early California Laws and Policies Relating to California Indians

California Research Bureau (CRB) | September 1st, 2002

Did the State of California enact laws that prohibited California Indians from practicing their religion, speaking their languages or practicing traditional ceremonies an

Did the State of California enact laws that prohibited California Indians from practicing their religion, speaking their languages or practicing traditional ceremonies and customs?  Senator John L. Burton requested that the California Research Bureau research this question. The initial investigation and research contained in this report led to a focus on four examples of early State of California laws and policies that significantly impacted the California Indians’ way of life: ·  The 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians and related amendments; ·  California militia policies and “Expeditions against the Indians” during 1851 to 1859; ·  The State of California’s official response to federal treaties negotiated with California Indians during 1851 to 1852; and ·  Early and current state fish protection laws that exempt California Indians from related prohibitions. The 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians facilitated removing California Indians from their traditional lands, separating at least a generation of children and adults from their families, languages, and cultures (1850 to 1865). This California law provided for “apprenticing” or indenturing Indian children and adults to Whites, and also punished “vagrant” Indians by “hiring” them out to the highest bidder at a public auction if the Indian could not provide sufficient bond or bail. The California Legislature created the laws that controlled California Indians’ land, lives and livelihoods, while enforcement and implementation occurred at the county and local township levels. Some examples include: ·  County-level Courts of Sessions and local township Justices of the Peace determined which Indians and Indian children were “apprenticed” or  indentured pursuant to the 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians. ·  Under the same act, Justices of the Peace, mayors or recorders of incorporated towns or cities, decided the status and punishment of “vagrant” Indians. ·  Under the California Constitution and state militia laws, California governors ordered local sheriffs to organize the men to conduct the “Expeditions against the Indians.” From 1851 to 1859, the California Legislature passed twenty-seven laws that the State Comptroller relied upon in determining the total expenditures related to the Expeditions against the Indians. The total amount of claims submitted to the State of California Comptroller for these Expeditions against the Indians was $1,293,179.20. The California Legislature was involved in influencing the U.S. Senate’s ratification process of the 18 treaties negotiated with California Indians during 1851 to 1852. These treaties were never ratified, and kept secret from 1852 until 1905. Prior to the President submitting the treaties to the Senate, the California Legislature conducted considerable debate, made reports, drafted and passed resolutions that mostly opposed ratification of the treaties. The California Legislature also enacted laws during the first fifteen years of statehood that accommodated Indian tribes’ traditional fishing practices. California laws exist today that continue to protect fish and exempt California Indians from related prohibitions.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA) | November 1st, 2019

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, or Subbasin) is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a state of critical overdraft. SGMA requires preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to address measures necessary to attain sustainable conditions in the Subbasin. Within the framework of SGMA, sustainability is generally defined as long-term reliability of the groundwater supply and the absence of undesirable results. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) was formed in 2017 in response to SGMA. A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishes the ESJGWA, which is composed of 16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, Eastside San Joaquin GSA (Eastside GSA) (composed of Calaveras County Water District [CCWD], Stanislaus County, and Rock Creek Water District), Linden County Water District (LCWD), Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), San Joaquin County No. 1, San Joaquin County No. 2 (with participation from California Water Service Company Stockton District [Cal Water]), South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), South San Joaquin GSA (composed of South San Joaquin Irrigation District [SSJID] including Woodward Reservoir, City of Ripon, and City of Escalon), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), and Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The ESJGWA is governed by a 16-member Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), with one representative from each GSA. The Board is guided by an Advisory Committee, also with one representative from each GSA, that is tasked with making recommendations to the ESJGWA Board on technical and substantive matters. SGMA requires development of a GSP that achieves groundwater sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The GSP outlines the need to reduce overdraft conditions and has identified 23 projects for potential development that either replace groundwater use (offset) or supplement groundwater supplies (recharge) to meet current and future water demands. Although current analysis indicates that groundwater pumping offsets and/or recharge on the order of 78,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year) may be required to achieve sustainability, additional efforts are needed to confirm the level of pumping offsets and/or recharge required to achieve sustainability. These efforts include collecting additional data and a review of the Subbasin groundwater model, along with other efforts as outlined in the GSP. A Public Draft GSP was prepared and made available for public review and comment on July 10, 2019 for a period of 45 days ending on August 25, 2019. The ESJGWA received numerous comments from the public, reviewed and prepared responses to comments, and revised the Draft GSP. This Final GSP includes those edits and revisions. Comment letters and responses are included as appendices to the GSP.

Effective Implementation of the Public Trust Doctrine in California Water Resources Decision-Making: A View From the Bench

University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) | April 12th, 2012

Forty years ago, in his seminal law review article on the public trust doctrine, Professor Joseph L. Sax suggested that “citizens seeking to develop a comprehen

Forty years ago, in his seminal law review article on the public trust doctrine, Professor Joseph L. Sax suggested that “citizens seeking to develop a comprehensive legal approach to resource management problems” could use the public trust doctrine to obtain “effective judicial intervention” where “legislative response and administrative action” had been inconsistent. Of course, water is one of the natural resources to which the public trust doctrine is, and always has been, particularly applicable. And yet, it was not until ten years after Professor Sax published his article that Professor Ralph W. Johnson first predicted an impending “collision” between “[t]he public trust doctrine and the appropriative water rights system . . . in the West.” The imminence of that collision — in California at least — was due in no small part to the National Audubon Society’s then-pending suit against the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (“L.A. Water and Power”) to limit diversions from the streams feeding Mono Lake.  That suit, which was a prime example of the sort of public interest litigation Professor Sax had advocated in his article, led to the California Supreme Court’s seminal decision in National Audubon, in which the court announced that “[t]he state has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect the public trust uses whenever feasible.” Today, twenty-eight years after the decision in National Audubon and more than forty years after Professor Sax’s article, what have we learned about the use of the public trust doctrine in water resources decision-making in California? Has it been an effective tool for obtaining judicial intervention in the decision-making process, as Professor Sax suggested it could be? And, more importantly, is judicial intervention the best way to effectuate and protect public trust values in the state’s water resources? Those are some of the questions I seek to answer in this Article.

Efficient Water Use in California: Water Rights, Water Districts, and Water Transfers

Rand Corporation (Rand) | November 13th, 1978

Enduring Solutions on the Colorado River

Arizona State University (ASU) | August 16th, 2024

As we work to reduce water use on the post-2026 Colorado River, two paths lie open before us. One is to incentivize conservation by giving water users the chance to bank

As we work to reduce water use on the post-2026 Colorado River, two paths lie open before us. One is to incentivize conservation by giving water users the chance to bank saved water for later use. Known most commonly as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS), and more broadly in a series of increasingly creative implementations as “Assigned Water,” this creates short term savings. But in the long run, the approach entitles the users to take the water back out of thE bank. The other involves permanent reductions – “System Water.” Water use is reduced for the benefit of the Colorado River as a whole. Investment in Assigned Water, attractive to water managers because of the allure that they can get their water back, has crowded out investment in the more durable System Water reductions that will be needed to bring the Colorado River into balance. As we develop new operating rules for the river, we need to be mindful of the differences involved. Accounting for water as Assigned Water is a means to reduce total water use in the short-term but the basin requires a means to reduce total water use over the long-term. Enduring solutions on the river can only be found by addressing overallocation, which at its most basic means that there needs to be more unassigned water in Lake Mead. Click here for Part II

Enduring Solutions on the Colorado River Part II Floating Pools and Grand Bargains

Arizona State University (ASU) | April 18th, 2025

Conserving water now in reservoir savings banks, as a hedge against future risks associated with drought and declining flows, has emerged as one of the central tools for

Conserving water now in reservoir savings banks, as a hedge against future risks associated with drought and declining flows, has emerged as one of the central tools for managing the Colorado River. The Lower Basin "Intentionally Created Surplus" program, created in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, has shown the idea's promise and given the basin nearly two decades to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. With tweaks to allow similar efforts in the Upper Basin and other modifications based on what we have learned about the current ICS approach, such "Floating Pools" are one of the key tools being considered as negotiators try to thread the needle of a seven-state agreement for post-2026 Colorado River management.mDone properly, they have the potential to finesse the states' disagreement over the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact in a way that could avoid potentially disruptive litigation. But getting the details right will be crucial to the development of an enduring bargain that can help the basin avoid the risk of interstate litigation. Click here for Part 1

Ensuring the Public Trust

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 1st, 2012

The California Supreme Court's recognition of the public trust doctrine as an integral part of California's water rights system was one of the momentous events in the h

The California Supreme Court's recognition of the public trust doctrine as an integral part of California's water rights system was one of the momentous events in the history of California (if not United States) environmental policy.' The court looked back to the foundational purposes of the public trust to hold that there are limits to the sovereign power to privatize the rights to use the waters of the state, and it looked forward to conclude that prudent development and sustainable use of California's water resources require the state to retain authority to protect the public trust for the benefit of all Californians. The court also defined the public trust as an environmental baseline that both protects the traditional interests of navigation, commerce, and fisheries and embodies the contemporary scientific and popular understanding that there are ecological limits to the diversion and use of water for consumptive purposes. The lessons of National Audubon Society v. Superior Court2 are now a commonplace of water rights law, appearing not just in administrative orders and judicial opinions, but also in standard water rights terms, policy studies, and legislation.

Environmental Law Foundation, et al. Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. State Water Resources Control Board, et al. Defendant, Cross-defendant and Respondent; County of Siskiyou, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant

State of California | August 29th, 2018

Click here to read Brian Gray, Senior Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California Water Policy Center and a Professor Emeritus at UC Hastings, on this ruling

Click here to read Brian Gray, Senior Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California Water Policy Center and a Professor Emeritus at UC Hastings, on this ruling and the potential ramifications under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Environmental Water Transactions in the Colorado River Basin: A Closer Look

Stanford University | November 14th, 2018

Over the last 30 years, the voluntary transfer of water and water rights for environmental uses has become a recognized strategy for restoring streamflow in the Western

Over the last 30 years, the voluntary transfer of water and water rights for environmental uses has become a recognized strategy for restoring streamflow in the Western United States. Historically, taking water out of a stream was a legally required element of an appropriative water right. Water rights holders who left all or a portion of their right instream to enhance fish populations, riparian habitat or recreation, risked forfeiture or diminishment of their water right. Beginning in the 1980’s, state laws began to recognize both the appropriation of new water rights for instream use and to allow the transfer and amendment of existing appropriative rights for those uses. Click here for previous report.