Stipulated Agreement: Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo et al

Superior Court of California, County of Inyo | October 21st, 1991

Suisun Marsh Monitoring Program Annual Data Summary Water Year 1999

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 31st, 2001

This report summarizes data collected in the Suisun Marsh during Water Year 1999 (October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999) pursuant to the following agreements, perm

This report summarizes data collected in the Suisun Marsh during Water Year 1999 (October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999) pursuant to the following agreements, permits, and water rights decisions: • State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1485, August 1978 (SWRCB 1978); • State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 95-6, 1995 (SWRCB 1995a); • Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, 1987 (USBR and others 1987); • Suisun Marsh Monitoring Agreement, 1987 (DWR and others 1987); • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit No. 35-78 (M) Amendment 7, 1997 (for construction of the initial facilities, namely the Roaring River Distribution System, Morrow Island Distribution System, and Goodyear Slough Outfall) (BCDC 1997); • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit No. 4-84 (M) Amendment 4, 1991 (for construction of the Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates) (1991); and, • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 16223E58 (for construction of the Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates), Special Condition 1, 1986 (USACE 1986). This report fulfills a portion of the annual reporting requirements of the above-listed, agreements, permits, and water rights decisions as detailed in Table 1. Remaining reporting requirements will be fulfilled in other Department of Water Resources (DWR) and/or University of California Davis reports. DWR and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) primarily collected data summarized in this report. The data include • general hydrologic data; • continuous channel water specific conductance and tidal height measurements; • marsh-wide vegetation survey update; • waterfowl abundance; and • salt marsh harvest mouse occurrence.

Summary of the Proposed Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement for Public Discussion Purposes

Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission | May 22nd, 2024

Supreme Court Declines to Review Ninth Circuit Decision Applying Federal Reserved Water Rights Doctrine to Groundwater

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | December 21st, 2017

The 2012-2016 drought in California and parts of other western states may have ended, but availability of water will continue to present issues for Cong

The 2012-2016 drought in California and parts of other western states may have ended, but availability of water will continue to present issues for Congress to consider. While state, rather than federal , law typically governs allocations of water resources within a state , there are exceptions where federal law does affect water allocation. Thefederal reserved water rights doctrine, for example, holds that when the federal government reserves federal lands for a particular purpose (such as for a tribal reservation or national monument ) , it impliedly reserves a right to water necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created . Si nce 1908, when the Supreme Court established the doctrine in Winters v. United States, courts have applied it to surface waters; a March 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) held, apparently for the first time, that the doctrine can encompass groundwater as well. On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to review this decision, which thus, for now, sets a potentially important precedent within the Ninth Circuit for other groundwater resource issues and disputes. The case Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District originated w hen a tribe sued local water agencies in 2013 in federal district court in California, alleging that the water agencies were adversely affecting the quantity and quality of water available to them by over-drafting an aquifer. Among other claims, the tribe sought a declaration that it had a federally reserved right to the groundwater underlying the reservation , which was established in the 1870s. The United States intervened to defend its ownership, tribal trust, and sovereign interests in the water rights and the tribe’s reservation. In 2015, t he district court ruled in favor of the tribe and the United States on the threshold claim that the government impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources — including underlying groundwater — when it created the tribe’ s reservation . (Subsequent phases of the Agua Caliente Band case are still being litigated. They involve whether the tribe owns the “pore space” or “storage space” of the groundwater basin.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (with 2015 amendments)

State of California | January 5th, 2016

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [And Related Statutory Provisions from SB1168 (Pavley), AB1739 (Dickinson), and SB1319 (Pavley) as Chaptered]

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [And Related Statutory Provisions from SB1168 (Pavley), AB1739 (Dickinson), and SB1319 (Pavley) as Chaptered]

Targeting Public Trust Suits

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | February 22nd, 2021

The California public trust doctrine empowers private individuals and interest groups to protect the public trust and to enforce state laws that protect the public trust.

The California public trust doctrine empowers private individuals and interest groups to protect the public trust and to enforce state laws that protect the public trust. California has long led the development of the doctrine in the United States, becoming the first state to allow citizen suits to protect the public trust in 1971. A number of other states have followed California’s lead, resulting in a significant expansion in environmental standing. This broadened standing seems to be settled law. In contrast, two California Court of Appeal decisions create some uncertainty about appropriate defendants in public trust lawsuits. These decisions counsel some caution as private parties pick their targets for public trust litigation.

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

Tentative Ruling, Friant Water Authority vs. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Superior Court of California, County of Tulare | June 25th, 2024