Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control Board
124 Cal.App.4th 245 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the California Constitution and Water Code, an application for a permit to appropriate water for storage must specify, and the State Water Resources Control Board must determine, the actual intended beneficial use, place of use, and estimated amounts of water before issuing the permit. The Board cannot satisfy this prerequisite by issuing a permit conditioned on the applicant identifying these elements at a later date.
Facts:
- Delta Wetlands Properties (DW) applied to the State Water Resources Control Board to appropriate water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
- DW's plan involved diverting water into large reservoirs to be constructed on two Delta islands, Bacon Island and Webb Tract.
- The impounded water was intended to be discharged back into the Delta at a later time and sold to potential purchasers.
- In its applications, DW did not identify any specific purchasers or have any contracts for the sale of the water.
- DW listed the potential purposes of use broadly as 'Domestic, Irrigation, Municipal, Industrial, and Fish and Wildlife.'
- DW identified the potential place of use as the vast service areas of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, covering a large portion of California.
Procedural Posture:
- Delta Wetlands Properties (DW) filed applications with the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) to appropriate water, beginning in 1987.
- Numerous parties, including the appellants, filed protests against the project.
- The Board held multi-day hearings on the applications in 1997 and 2000.
- The Board certified a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and, on February 15, 2001, issued Decision No. 1643, approving permits for DW's project subject to numerous conditions.
- Central Delta Water Agency and other protesters (Appellants) challenged the Board's decision in a state trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment against the Appellants, upholding the Board's decision.
- Appellants appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the California Water Code permit the State Water Resources Control Board to issue a permit to appropriate water for storage when the applicant has not identified any specific purchasers, the definite places of use, or the actual intended beneficial uses of the water?
Opinions:
Majority - Blease, Acting P. J.
No. A permit to appropriate water for storage cannot be issued without a pre-determination of the actual, intended beneficial use of the water. Both the California Constitution and the Water Code limit water rights to the amount reasonably required for a beneficial use. The Water Code requires an application to specify the nature, amount, and place of the proposed use (§ 1260) and, for reservoir storage, 'the use to be made of the impounded waters' (§ 1266). A vague statement of potential uses over a massive, undefined service area is insufficient to meet these statutory mandates. The Board's duty to determine that an intended use is beneficial is a prerequisite to issuing a permit and cannot be delegated to its staff or deferred by imposing a condition that the permittee secure a buyer and specify the use after the permit is granted. Furthermore, without knowing the specific end use of the water, the Board could not conduct a proper environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the environmental impacts of the water's ultimate delivery and use remained speculative.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the centrality of the 'beneficial use' doctrine in California water law, clarifying that it is a strict prerequisite, not a future contingency, for acquiring appropriative rights. It prevents the speculative hoarding of water rights by entities that lack a concrete, immediate plan for the water's use. By requiring applicants to identify end-users and specific uses upfront, the ruling ensures that the Water Board can conduct a meaningful analysis of whether a proposed appropriation is reasonable, non-wasteful, and in the public interest. The decision also strengthens environmental review under CEQA by requiring that the impacts of the water's ultimate use be assessed before a project of this nature is approved.
Unlock the full brief for Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control Board