National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County

Supreme Court of California | February 17th, 1983

Navigability and its Consequences: State Title, Mineral Rights, and the Public Trust Doctrine

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | June 12th, 2014

“Navigability” and “navigable waters” are two of the most complex terms of art in American law because their meanings vary from context to context. A “navigable

“Navigability” and “navigable waters” are two of the most complex terms of art in American law because their meanings vary from context to context. A “navigable water” for purposes of the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction is not precisely the same thing as a “navigable water” for Commerce Clause purposes, and the Commerce Clause definition can be further refined in statute like the federal Clean Water Act. Other important federal law definitions of navigability govern state title to banks and beds of waterways and the scope of the federal navigation servitude. As this article will discuss, these tests overlap considerably, and attempts to distinguish them can cause confusion. State law definitions of “navigability” for state regulatory purposes complicate the multiple valences of “navigable water” even further. This article provides an overview of some of the more important definitions of “navigability” and “navigable waters.” In general, labeling a waterway as “navigable” signals that either the federal government or the public acquires some right to the waterway in question. However, if the waterway also meets the “navigable water” test for state title, complicated legal relationships among the federal government, the relevant state, the general public, and private riparian landowners almost inevitably follow.

Notice of Entry of Order for Implementation of 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 | November 14th, 2023

Petition for 2023 Drought Emergency Regulation or Other Emergency Action to Protect Nesting Birds, Water Quality, and other Public Trust Resources at Mono Lake

Mono Lake Committee | December 16th, 2022

Petition For Rulemaking to Set Minimum Flows on the Shasta River

Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center | January 20th, 2024

Decades of scientific inquiry make clear that adequate quality and quantity of flows are needed to prevent remaining fish populations from further decline. Yet this scien

Decades of scientific inquiry make clear that adequate quality and quantity of flows are needed to prevent remaining fish populations from further decline. Yet this science is not self-executing; effective government intervention is necessary to prevent the extirpation of salmonids in the Shasta. This type of government action is at the core of the Public Trust Doctrine, which requires the government to act as a trustee over public trust resources, and to the extent feasible, step in to protect these resources from over-allocation and over-use.

Public Trust Distrust

William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository | January 1st, 2001

This Comment reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the public trust, a doctrine originating in Roman common Jaw and now constitutionalized by many states, and explores

This Comment reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the public trust, a doctrine originating in Roman common Jaw and now constitutionalized by many states, and explores its contentious reception by green legal theorists. Since Professor Joseph Sax's revival of the doctrine as a vehicle for environmental legal advocacy in the early 1970s, it has been hatled by many ·as the most powerful tool available for protecting natural resource commons and attacked by others who argue that use of the property rights-based doctrine will rectify an ownership approach to natural resources and obstruct the development of more stewardship-oriented legal theories of natural resource management. Discussion focuses on the work of Professor Sax, representing the public trust advocates, and Professor Richard Lazarus, representing the green dissent. The Comment concludes that the green dissent may elide the theoretical growth of the modern constitutionalized version of the doctrine beyond its common Jaw roots.

Racanelli Decision: Detailed summary of the decision

Department of Justice (DOJ) | November 16th, 2007

At their meeting on October 25, 2007, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force members asked for a summary of United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 1

At their meeting on October 25, 2007, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force members asked for a summary of United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, commonly referred to as the “Racanelli Decision,” after the appellate judge who wrote the opinion. We repeat the Court’s own very short summary of the case, followed by a more detailed summary of the decision.

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

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.

The Public Trust Doctrine and California Water Law: National Audubon Society v. Department of Water and Power

University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (UC Law SF) | June 15th, 1982

Conflicting demands on dwindling surface water supplies in California have led to frequent challenges of state decisions to grant diversions of water that impair or destr

Conflicting demands on dwindling surface water supplies in California have led to frequent challenges of state decisions to grant diversions of water that impair or destroy ecological, recreational, or other instream uses of surface waters. This Comment examines the fundamental problems of surface water allocation in California and addresses the possibility of incorporating the public trust doctrine into the current water law system. The Comment then evaluates a recent attempt to apply the public trust doctrine in National Audubon Society v. Department of Water and Power. The Comment concludes by offering an alternative means to public trust protection of California's surface waters.