National Audubon Society v. Superior Court
33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state, as sovereign, retains continuous supervisory control over its navigable waters under the public trust doctrine, which requires the state to consider public trust values in the allocation of water rights and precludes any party from acquiring a vested right to appropriate water in a manner harmful to the interests protected by the public trust.
Facts:
- Mono Lake, a large saline lake and critical ecological habitat for birds, is fed by five freshwater streams.
- In 1940, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (DWP) obtained permits to appropriate virtually the entire flow of four of the five streams feeding Mono Lake.
- Initially, DWP diverted about half the flow of these streams into its aqueduct system.
- In 1970, DWP completed a second diversion tunnel, which allowed it to divert virtually the entire flow from the four streams.
- As a direct result of these diversions, Mono Lake's surface level dropped by 43 feet, its surface area diminished by one-third, and its salinity drastically increased.
- The falling water level exposed a land bridge to a major island nesting colony for California gulls, allowing predators such as coyotes to access the nests, which caused the gulls to abandon the site.
- The increased salinity threatened the lake's ecosystem, including the brine shrimp population which is a primary food source for the migratory and nesting birds.
- The receding shoreline exposed thousands of acres of alkaline lakebed, creating dust storms that impacted air quality and scenic views.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Audubon Society and other plaintiffs filed suit against the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (DWP) in the Superior Court for Mono County.
- On a motion for change of venue, the case was transferred to the Superior Court for Alpine County.
- After DWP filed a cross-complaint against numerous parties, a cross-defendant (the United States) removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
- The federal district court stayed its proceedings under the abstention doctrine and requested that California state courts resolve two questions of state law concerning the relationship between the public trust doctrine and the state water rights system.
- Plaintiffs filed a new complaint in Alpine County Superior Court to address the federal court's questions.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for DWP, ruling that the public trust doctrine was subsumed within the state water rights system and that plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Plaintiffs petitioned the California Supreme Court directly for a writ of mandate to review the superior court's decision.
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 public trust doctrine function independently of California's appropriative water rights system, thereby allowing a party to challenge existing water appropriation permits on the grounds that the diversion harms public trust interests in a navigable lake?
Opinions:
Majority - Broussard, J.
Yes. The public trust doctrine is not subsumed by the appropriative water rights system but is an integrated part of California water law, imposing a continuing duty on the state to protect public trust uses whenever feasible. The court reasoned that the state's sovereign power and duty to exercise continuous supervision over navigable waters, the core of the public trust, applies to rights in flowing waters. This power prevents any party from acquiring a vested right to appropriate water in a manner harmful to trust interests. While the state may approve appropriations that harm public trust uses out of necessity, it has an affirmative duty to consider the impact on the trust and attempt to avoid or minimize harm. Because DWP's 1940 permits were granted by a Water Board that mistakenly believed it lacked the power to protect the trust, a reconsideration of the water allocation that balances the needs of Los Angeles against the environmental harm to Mono Lake is required and not barred by any vested rights.
Concurring - Kaus, J.
Yes. While concurring with the majority's opinion, this opinion expresses a preference for the view that the Water Board should have exclusive original jurisdiction over such disputes. However, since a majority of the court was not inclined to overrule precedents establishing concurrent jurisdiction, the author joins the majority opinion.
Concurrence - Richardson, J.
Yes, on the substantive law, but No on the procedural issue. This opinion concurs with the majority's integration of the public trust doctrine and the water rights system. However, it dissents from the majority's holding on concurrent jurisdiction, arguing that the Water Board should have exclusive original jurisdiction. The reasoning is that the complexity of water resource management, the need for agency expertise, and the goal of comprehensive planning are 'overriding considerations' that warrant applying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Given the court's expansion of the Water Board's authority to include public trust issues, deference to the board is the proper course.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally reshaped California water law by integrating the public trust doctrine with the modern appropriative rights system. It established that long-standing water rights are not absolute and can be re-evaluated to prevent significant harm to environmental and ecological resources. The ruling empowers courts and state agencies to modify existing water allocations to balance consumptive uses with public trust values, such as wildlife protection and recreation. This creates a powerful legal basis for challenging water diversions that cause environmental degradation, significantly impacting water management and planning throughout the state and setting a precedent for other states.
Unlock the full brief for National Audubon Society v. Superior Court