Revised Water Right Decision 1641

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

Role of Science and Engineering in Decision-Making Within the State and Regional Water Boards

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 16th, 2005

The primary purpose of State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards is to preserve and protect the beneficial uses of all waters

The primary purpose of State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards is to preserve and protect the beneficial uses of all waters of the State. This includes all ground water, more than 1.6 million acres of lakes, 211,000 miles of rivers and streams, more than 1.3 million acres of bays and estuaries, 1,609 miles of coastline, and the first three miles of ocean off of our coastline. The California legislature found that “activities and factors which may affect the quality of the waters of the State shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality that is reasonable . . . (and) that the state must protect the quality of waters in the state from degradation inside or outside the boundaries of the state.” How we use water, or expect to use water in the future determines its beneficial uses. A designated beneficial use determines the quality of water that must be maintained for that use. Protecting water quality and preventing degradation in order to preserve beneficial uses of water relies heavily on science and engineering. Protecting water quality also depends on an equitable system for allocating water resources, which is carried out by the State Water Resources Control Board’s water rights program. This report discusses the role of science and engineering (technology) in decision-making at the water boards in implementing federal and state laws along with their implementing regulations, and water board plans and policies.

Royce Tipton and the Hydrology of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico

John Fleck | May 26th, 2025

Rules and Regulations of the Borrego Springs Watermaster

Superior Court of California, County of Orange | February 23rd, 2021

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 Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District

United States District Court, Central District of California | September 23rd, 2022

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

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

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.