Millview County Water District v. State Water Resources Control Board

14 Citing cases

  1. In re Cal. Water Curtailment Cases

    83 Cal.App.5th 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    In turn, senior appropriators—those who acquired their rights first in time—are entitled to satisfy their reasonable needs, up to their full appropriation, before more junior appropriators are entitled to any water." ( Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 890, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 ( Millview ).) Appropriators do not lose their appropriative rights in times of insufficient water.

  2. Dummer v. S.F. Pub. Utils. Comm'n

    No. A160789 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2021)

    Rather, the petition “speculates that [the Board] ‘(presumably) recently' issued a permit to San Francisco.” CitingMillview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879 (Millview), the court also rejected Dummer's claim that San Francisco's legacy appropriation rights had lapsed during the dam reconstruction project. The trial court further ruled that while the Department has mandatory duties under section 303, subdivisions (a) and (d), with regard to approving the commencement of construction or enlargement of a dam or reservoir, the petition failed to allege that the Department had issued a written approval for the Calaveras Dam replacement project without receiving evidence of San Francisco's water rights, or that the Department had failed to obtain an opinion from the Board's staff as required by section 303, subdivision (d).

  3. Millview Cnty. Water Dist. v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

    4 Cal.App.5th 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 31 times
    Finding insufficient evidence to satisfy financial burden requirement and declining to address other elements

    After the Board entered the proposed CDO, Millview, Hill, and Gomes (plaintiffs) jointly prevailed in a mandate action filed to challenge the CDO. We affirmed the superior court's order vacating the CDO in Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 (Millview I ). Following our decision, plaintiffs sought an award of attorney fees from the Board under Code of Civil Procedure 1section 1021.5, arguing they had conferred a substantial public benefit by obtaining a published appellate opinion addressing the issue of water rights forfeiture under California law.

  4. City of Carlsbad v. Cal. State Water Res. Control Bd.

    B283861 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2018)

    Riparian users and pre-1914 appropriators need neither a permit nor other governmental authorization to exercise their water rights. [Citation.]" (Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 888-889, fns. omitted (Millview).) Carlsbad contends it is entitled to declaratory relief with respect to its claim of pre-1914 water rights because California courts have concurrent jurisdiction over water rights cases (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 451), and therefore Carlsbad was not required to first present its claim of pre-1914 water rights to the Board for determination. Carlsbad also contends that even if the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies would require it to first present its claim of pre-1914 water rights to the Board, exhaustion is not required where it would be futile; Carlsbad asserts that here, presenting its claim of pre-1914 water rights to the Board would be futile because the Board's adverse position with respect to Carlsbad's pre-1914 water rights is clear.

  5. United States v. U.S. Bd. of Water Comm'rs

    890 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    A court "review[s] the record to determine whether the [Board's] factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, resolving all evidentiary conflicts and drawing all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of the [Board's] decision." Millview Cty. Water Dist. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 735, 746 (2014) (citation omitted). Like Nevada courts, California courts review the Board's legal conclusions independently, "giving deference to the determination of the agency appropriate to the circumstances of the agency action."

  6. Buena Vista Water Storage Dist. v. Kern Water Bank Auth.

    76 Cal.App.5th 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 4 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting contention that project description setting an " ‘open-ended limit’ " of water was unstable and indefinite; noting a "precise amount of water" could not "be determined because water availability will fluctuate from year to year"

    Historical use may determine the quantitative limits on the amount of water that a pre-1914 water appropriator may divert. ( Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 889, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 735.) As the lead agency, KWBA had the discretion to rely upon historical measurements of water to determine " ‘how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured .... [Citation].’ "

  7. Chaudhuri v. The Regents of The Univ. of Cal.

    No. B307486 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2022)

    The cases Chaudhuri cites all deal with fundamental property interests protected by procedural due process. (See Brown v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 155, 169; Ng v. State Personnel Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 600, 605; Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 569-570; Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 908-909.) But Chaudhuri does not contend that the university denied him notice and an opportunity to be heard at any point or that a second hearing would deny him "notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving [him] of a protected liberty or property interest-the foundational requirements of procedural due process."

  8. Pini v. Fenley

    No. C088892 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2021)

    Pini does not explain why the discovery already conducted was insufficient or what particular information she was denied. (Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 906.) The court left open the possibility of further discovery if its relevance became apparent in the course of the trial.

  9. L. K. Hollenbeak Logging, Co. v. Negus

    C080527 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2020)

    And we refer to other appropriative rights as post-1914 rights because they were acquired after that date under the state's current permitting scheme. (See Shirokow, at p. 307 & fn. 6; Haight v. Costanich (1920) 184 Cal. 426, 431; Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 889, fn. 7.) -------- The court next described the parties' respective rights to maintain and manage the ditch and the diversion structure on Farmer's property.

  10. Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.

    52 Cal.App.5th 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 28 times
    In Abatti this court issued a limited holding: that farmers within the Imperial Irrigation District possessed an equitable and beneficial interest in that district's water rights, which the district held in trust for its users' benefit.

    Finally, Abatti contends that the 2013 EDP causes a "forced reduction" of water use by farmers, that an appropriator's "water rights ... are lost by a sustained period of five years of non-use" under sections 1240 and 1241, and that the District risks losing its rights by reducing the amount of water used by farmers. The authority that Abatti cites in support of these contentions pertains to forfeiture of pre-1914 rights and is inapposite ( Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879, 891, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 ), and he provides no statutory analysis. We deem the point forfeited, other than to note that Abatti is essentially ignoring the existence of the clearinghouse, as he does in other arguments that we discuss, post.