In re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No CV Tentative Decision re Trial Phase V
|
|
- Todd Fox
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1
2 way of a physical solution, and whether the court should enter a single judgment or a separate judgment on the stipulation of the settling parties. The LOG/Wineman parties voluntarily moved to dismiss all causes of action other than their actions to Quiet Title to their water rights appurtenant to their various properties. The only evidence presented by them on their specific claims established their current title to the real property. There was no evidence presented as to the reasonable and beneficial use of the water underlying their land. They did present evidence that generally in the basin as a whole there was no decline in the total quantity of pumping from the aquifer during the many drought years in which pumping greatly exceeded recharge of the aquifer. n the Phase V trial, the court concluded that the public water producers had pumped water in specified amounts during periods of over draft and that such pumping was open, notorious and hostile to the rights of overlying landowners within the valley. The court quantified the combined prescriptive rights so found as 000 acre feet a year. The prescriptive rights must be measured against whatever quantified rights overlying owners have. Without evidence to measure the overlying owner s rights, the court cannot determine the effect the prescriptive rights have on overlying owner s rights. Thus, while the evidence presented is sufficient to establish legal title, there was no evidence that would permit the court to quiet title to the overlying water rights in light of the claim of prescription. Quiet title may be an appropriate remedy to establish water rights in an appropriate case. But here because not all parties producing water from the Santa Maria Valley are joined and where there are many other overlying land owner parties who produce water from this single basin aquifer who were but are no longer parties to the proceedings, that remedy is unavailable because the court cannot ascertain the extent of the rights claimed by the landowners. The court will address the basic issues, however, in the declaratory relief actions brought by the public water producers. n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
3 The City of Santa Maria has established a prescriptive right to 0 acre feet a year and the Golden State Water Company has established a prescriptive right to 100 acre feet a year. Those rights are usufructuary and are also correlative to the same extent that an overlying owner s rights are correlative. Those public water producers are entitled to those specific quantities of water in the aquifer the same as any overlying landowner so long as there is a surplus of water in the aquifer, and they also have a priority over other appropriators in those circumstances just as an overlying owner has a priority when there is no surplus. The Public Water Producers ask the court to allocate the prescriptive rights obtained by the City of Santa Maria and the Golden State Water Company against only the LOG and Wineman parties. But the evidence establishes that the water appropriated by the public water producers was not water to which only the LOG and the Wineman Group parties have rights. All rights to water within a single basin aquifer being correlative, all rights within the basin may be affected by the acquisition of prescriptive rights by a party who appropriates. The evidence establishes that overall pumping by all parties (overlying owners as well as appropriators) continued without reduction during the periods of severe drought, resulting in serious depletion of water in the aquifer. Prescriptive rights obtained during that period therefore must be a charge against the aquifer as a whole, and all overlying owners to one extent or the other; and not just against a single landowner. The LOG/Wineman Group parties ask the court to find that they have exercised self help and that the public water producers have therefore not acquired any prescriptive rights. The doctrine of self-help is a concept that has been used by the courts to describe the relationship between overlying land owners and appropriators in circumstances where an appropriator has obtained prescriptive rights at the same time that an overlying owner has continued to pump but has not sought legal action to enjoin the appropriator. Whether it is appropriately called self help or not, there is a legal consequence to the continuous pumping from the aquifer during times of overdraft by both the appropriator and the overlying land owner. n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
4 The party asserting prescription must prove the elements of prescription. The land owner mitigates the effect of prescription by so called self help. Perhaps traditional common law principles best describe it. See analogously Smith v. New Hampshire (10) Cal. App., where a party obtained a prescriptive easement in a ditch to carry water across the land of another but the fee owner also used the easement during the period of prescription to transport water. As a consequence, the prescriptive easement was non-exclusive. The analogy is far from perfect but is somewhat useful as authority for the doctrine of self help mitigates but does not prevent the adverse party from obtaining prescriptive rights. n the ground water context, even though the overlying owner continues to pump concurrently with the appropriator, because there is no surplus in times of overdraft, the appropriator is taking water to which the overlying owner has a prior right. t would seem that using the Smith v. New Hampshire reasoning, the land owner cannot prevent prescription but may mitigate the loss of rights by continuing to pump. The only overlying landowner parties adverse to the public water producers in the fourth and fifth phases of the trial are the LOG and Wineman Group parties and therefore the court may not make any orders or render any judgments reducing the rights of the other overlying land owners in the basin at this time. And without a quantification of the water rights of the LOG and Wineman Group parties, as well as the other overlying owners rights, the court at this time cannot determine the effect that prescription has on any landowner party. n the event of water shortages in the ground water basin, it would be necessary for the court to quantify all usufructuary rights and equitably allocate pumping rights of each right holder over whom the court has jurisdiction. Under those circumstances a court would be required to recognize and take into consideration land owners rights, prescriptive rights, imported water rights, and the right to return flows. The stipulating parties have agreed and requested that the court retain equitable jurisdiction over the parties in this matter. There is reasonable certainty that the valley will suffer water shortages in the future and that the court will be required to act in the future to preserve the rights of the various parties to this litigation in the event that Twitchell is not n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
5 renovated and restored and a possibility that such shortages may occur even if Twitchell capacity is restored. Future water shortages may require the court to evaluate pumping rights and to quantify the reasonable and beneficial uses of water which each party seeks to pump. The majority of the property owners who produce water in the valley have entered into a stipulation to settle their interests in the case, and have stipulated with the public water producers regarding both the claimed prescriptive rights as well as a purported physical solution to preserve the hydrologic health of the valley aquifer. The stipulation, inter alia, provides for monitoring of water use. That data will be available to the court in the event of a severe water shortage affecting the entire valley if the court is called upon to act. The LOG and Wineman Group parties are not parties to the stipulation and have not agreed to participate in water monitoring. The LOG and Wineman Group parties must monitor their water production, maintain records thereof, and make the data available to the court and its designee in view of the substantial likelihood of future water shortage so that the court can ascertain the reasonable and beneficial use of water rights of all parties and the effect of prescription on all overlying land owner water producers. The stipulating parties have also agreed as between themselves to equitably divide the water produced by Twitchell that results in recharge to the aquifer. The recharge to the valley from Twitchell to which the stipulating parties have agreed is,000 acre feet a year. The stipulating parties have agreed to allocate 0 percent of that recharge to the public water producers and 0 percent to the other parties to the stipulation. The parties can so agree and be bound to the agreement in the future. Those who are not parties to the agreement, such as the LOG and Wineman Group parties, however, are not bound by the agreement. Accordingly, while, in the event of a drought and consequent water shortages, the stipulating parties will have a basis for the court being asked to enforce the settlement among themselves if need be, that in and of itself cannot affect the rights to ground water of non-stipulating parties. The correlative rights of non-stipulating parties to ground water will remain unaffected by the n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
6 stipulation subject only to the court s findings of the legal consequence of the prescriptive rights and the court s equitable jurisdiction. The LOG and Wineman Group parties contend that the Conservation District cannot enter into such a contract (the stipulation) because it lacks authority to shift water from all users in the basin to a select few who pay for it. They also argue that even if it has the authority to do so, it would have to obtain an environmental impact report before doing so. The agreement allocates water rights only among those parties who are party to the agreement. The objecting, non-stipulating parties are not parties to the agreement and are unaffected by the agreement. The LOG/Wineman Group parties object to the agreement by the conservation district on the grounds that no environmental impact report has been prepared by the district. The court is not satisfied that the parties have adequately addressed the issue of an environmental impact and will require more briefing on that issue before the court rules upon the objection if the parties wish to make that an issue. The parties should also indicate whether it is the renovation and restoration of the reservoir or the division of the water between the stipulating parties that requires an environmental impact report. The court notes that the agreement does not deprive any party of water who is not party to the agreement, does not modify the operation of the reservoir and dam beyond what was originally provided for, and merely would restore its capacity to the original planned capacity. There does not appear to be an environmental impact that would on its face require a further environmental impact report and statement. Nevertheless, the parties may brief the issue if they choose. The conservation district does have the right to provide by contract for the maintenance and operation of the dam and the reservoir to carry out its contractual duties arising out of the contract between the U.S. Department of the nterior (Bureau of Reclamation) and the Santa Barbara County Water agency which have been delegated to the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District. The contract duties include the maintenance and operation of the dam and reservoir for flood control purposes, to enhance annual recharge of the aquifer, and to n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
7 benefit all users appurtenant to the ground water basin. The water conservation district has the power to enter into contracts to carry out those functions. The stipulation (contract) is designed to provide for restoration and maintenance of the storage capacity of the reservoir and thereby ensure an adequate water supply for the entire valley. That is a legitimate purpose and it benefits all parties here, even the objecting parties. The overwhelming majority of water producers in the valley have entered into the stipulation. The only parties who have not so agreed and are objecting are the LOG and Wineman Group parties. The court concludes that a physical solution is necessary and appropriate to provide for future exigencies and that the water management plan provided for in the stipulation is necessary and appropriate and will provide an efficacious solution. The public water producers request that the court approve the water management plan agreed to in the stipulation. The court intends to do that in its final judgment as to the stipulating parties but to exclude the allocation of the Twitchell production from the imposition of the plan on the objecting parties. t would be premature for the court to order an allocation of water produced by Twitchell as to parties who are not party to the stipulated agreement. Whatever quantity the public water producers have obtained by way of prescription must be charged against the valley as a whole. There has been no evidence presented that would permit the court to charge that amount of water as a charge against LOG and Wineman Group parties alone. They cannot be precluded from any share of the Twitchell production on that basis. The Santa Maria Valley water basin continues to be in jeopardy of overdraft in times of drought. Pumping has increased with increases in population. The Twitchell dam has ongoing and increasingly serious accumulation of silt in the reservoir. The build up of silt in the reservoir reduces the capacity of the reservoir to store water necessary to recharge the aquifer. The dam has to date lost substantial capacity to store water as a consequence of silt accumulation. ncreasing the capacity of the dam is a long range endeavor. f a lengthy period of drought occurs before the dam capacity has been restored, pumping at current levels from the aquifer will be reasonably certain to result in an overdraft. The agreement between the n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
8 stipulating parties offers some hope for the future of the basin but it is not a guaranty even under the best of circumstances. Even after the dam was completed, there was an overdraft in the basin for the years 1 to 1, in addition to extensive pre-twitchell periods of overdraft in the historic past. The valley has experienced extreme variations in precipitation and run off from the surrounding watershed, and drought years have historically been lengthy and especially severe. The evidence before the court is that similar patterns may be expected to recur in the future. Thus, this is a matter in equity and the court will therefore retain jurisdiction to carry out and enforce its judgment as necessary and to implement the stipulation and protect the interests of all parties, the stipulating parties, the LOG and Wineman Group parties, the Public Water Producers and the public generally. The court intends to enter a single judgment, incorporating the stipulated terms and imposing all but the allocation of Twitchell water into those terms as to all parties to this litigation. The allocation of Twitchell water and certain costs and duties shall be only as to those stipulating parties. The prescriptive rights of the public water producers shall be part of the judgment. All parties shall participate in and be bound by the Management Area Monitoring Program. The Court will enter judgment for the cross defendant public water producing parties on the Cross complaints by LOG and the Wineman Group parties for quiet title. The court will find title in the LOG and Wineman parties as part of the Declaratory Relief Action filed by the Public Water Producers but deny quiet title to water rights for the reasons stated above. The Northern Cities have a prior right to 00 acre feet per year and the non stipulating parties have no right thereto, or any return flows. Judgments may also be entered against all defaulting parties. n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01
9 objections and oral argument thereto after they are received. Q '~ated: November,W w e of the Superior Cow - 1. % P ' l 1 / i f m' a1 ; ', : ' sl :
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 11/21/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CITY OF SANTA MARIA et al., Cross-complainants, Cross-defendants and Respondents, H032750
More informationOne Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America
S. 612 One Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen An Act
More informationRULES AND REGULATIONS BEAUMONT BASIN WATERMASTER
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BEAUMONT BASIN WATERMASTER Adopted: June 8, 2004 Amended: February 7, 2006 Amended: September 9, 2008 200809_amended_BBWM_ Rules_Regs Full_Size.doc 1 Beaumont Basin Watermaster
More informationVague and Ambiguous. The terms market and marketing are not defined.as such, the
(c) (d) Not Directed to All Settling Parties. This discovery request was directed to all three Settling Parties (the United States, the Navajo Nation, and the State of New Mexico) requesting information
More informationThe Rio Grande flows for approximately 1,900 miles from the
Water Matters! Transboundary Waters: The Rio Grande as an International River 26-1 Transboundary Waters: The Rio Grande as an International River The Rio Grande is the fifth longest river in the United
More informationAN ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT FOR MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIERS
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT FOR MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIERS Russell McGlothlin Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Shareholder League of Cities 2018 Annual Conference September
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 2001 1 Decree SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 108, Orig. STATE OF NEBRASKA, PLAINTIFF v. STATES OF WYOMING AND COLORADO ON PETITION FOR ORDER ENFORCING DECREE AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
More informationThe Aamodt case is a complex, long-running adjudication of water
Water Matters! Aamodt Adjudication 22-1 Aamodt Adjudication The State, local and Pueblo government parties to the Aamodt case, most irrigators and other people residing in the Basin, support settlement
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 1739
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 18, 2014 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 7, 2014 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 4, 2014 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 17, 2014 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 22, 2014 california legislature 2013 14 regular
More informationEXHIBIT C DECLARATION OF LUCAS I. QUASS 20
EXHIBIT C DECLARATION OF LUCAS I. QUASS 0 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES Included Actions: Los Angeles County Waterworks
More informationLAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D.
Michael D. McLachlan (State Bar No. 1) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN, APC West Sixth Street, Suite 1 Los Angeles, California 001 Telephone: (1) 0- Facsimile: (1) 0- mike@mclachlanlaw.com Daniel M.
More informationLINKAGE TO STRATEGIC PLAN, POLICY, STATUTE OR GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
CONTACT: Dennis Rule Suzanne Ticknor 623-869-2667 623-869-2410 drule@cap-az.com sticknor@cap-az.com MEETING DATE: March 7, 2013 Agenda Number 2.d. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Water Availability Status Contract
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON BILL OF COMPLAINT MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
More informationChange in Use and/or Change in Place of Use Procedure to change use or place of use.
Types of Petitions Appeal from Endorsement of the State Engineer 41-4-514. Petition for amendment of permits; petition for amended certificate of appropriation; hearings on petition; notice; costs. The
More informationANTELOPE VALLEY WATERMASTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
December 12, 2016 ANTELOPE VALLEY WATERMASTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA December 15, 2016 1:00 p.m. Los Angeles County Farm Bureau 41228 12 th Street West, Suite A Palmdale, CA 93551 Conference
More information2017 CO 43. This appeal from the water court in Water Division No. 1 concerns the nature and
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationORIGINAL FILED. los ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT MAR 1G 2010 ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES
ORIGINAL FILED MAR G 0 los ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES " JI 0 ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES Included Consolidated Actions: 0 v. Diamond Farming Co. Superior
More informationArkansas River Compact Kansas-Colorado 1949 ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT
Arkansas River Compact Kansas-Colorado 1949 K.S.A. 82a-520. Arkansas river compact. The legislature hereby ratifies the compact, designated as the "Arkansas river compact," between the states of Colorado
More informationDRAFT WATER BILL 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1 PART II OWNERSHIP, USE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 3
DRAFT WATER BILL 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Short title and commencement 1 Interpretation 1 PART I PRELIMINARY 1 PART II OWNERSHIP, USE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 3 Ownership of water resources 3 Regulation
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
William C. Kuhs, State Bar No. 39217 Robert G. Kuhs, State Bar No. 160291 Kuhs & Parker P. O. Box 2205 1200 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 200 Bakersfield, CA 93303 Telephone: (661 322-4004 Facsimile: (661 322-2906
More informationAGENDA REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Board of Directors Robert Eranio, President Daniel C. Naumann, Vice President Michael W. Mobley, Secretary/Treasurer Sheldon G. Berger Bruce E. Dandy Lynn E. Maulhardt Edwin T. McFadden III General Manager
More informationReferred to Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing the appropriation of water.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 0 COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, AND MINING (ON BEHALF OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES) PREFILED NOVEMBER,
More informationIdaho Water Law: Water Rights Primer & Definitions. A. What is a Water Right?
Idaho Water Law: Water Rights Primer & Definitions DISCLAIMER: This information was created by and is attributable to IDWR. It is provided through the Law Office of Arthur B. for your adjudication circumstances
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BOULDER CANYON PROJECT
Contract No. 4-07-3O-W0041 Amendment No. 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BOULDER CANYON PROJECT AMENDATORY. SUPPLEMENTARY. AND RESTATING CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF NEVADA
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Coordinated Proceeding Special Title (Rule 10(b)) ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES Included Actions: Los Angeles County Waterworks District
More informationThe Golden Rule* of Water Management
Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal Volume 9 Issue 1 Symposium Edition: The Waste of Water in 21st Century California Article 8 January 2016 The Golden Rule* of Water Management Russell M.
More informationRIO GRANDE COMPACT VIOLATIONS. New Mexico s ever increasing water use and groundwater pumping below Elephant
RIO GRANDE COMPACT VIOLATIONS VIOLATION New Mexico s ever increasing water use and groundwater pumping below Elephant Butte Reservoir (EBR) deprives Texas of water apportioned to it under the 1938 Rio
More informationWater Resources Protection Ordinance
Water Resources Protection Ordinance The mission of the district is to provide Silicon Valley safe, clean water for a healthy life, environment, and economy. This ordinance protects water resources managed
More informationOne Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America
H. R. 3267 One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred
More informationAGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF WATER FROM THE NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY THE CITY OF LODI
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF WATER FROM THE NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY THE CITY OF LODI This Agreement is made and entered into between North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
H. Jess Senecal (CSB #0) EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES UNDER Thomas S. Bunn III (CSB #0) GOVERNMENT CODE LAGERLOF, SENECAL, GOSNEY & KRUSE, LLP 01 N. Lake Avenue, th Floor Pasadena, CA 01- Telephone: () -00
More information~upreme ~ourt o[ t~e f~niteb ~tate~
No. 126, Original ~upreme ~ourt o[ t~e f~niteb ~tate~ STATE OF KANSAS, Plaintiff, STATE OF NEBRASKA and STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants. ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE KANSAS REPLY STEVE N. SIX Attorney General
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA
0 0 Keith L. Hendricks, Bar No. 00 Joshua T. Greer, Bar No. 00 0 N. Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, AZ 00 KHendricks@law-msh.com Telephone: 0.0.0 Douglas C. Nelson, Bar No. 00 LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS C.
More informationWATERBURY S WATER WAR
WATERBURY S WATER WAR Prof. Joseph W. Dellapenna Villanova University School of Law Reporter, Middle Atlantic Region On July 2, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided the case of City of Waterbury vs. Town
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON THE EXCEPTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE
More informationNambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos Settlement
Water Matters! Nambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos Settlement 22-1 Nambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos Settlement The State, local and Pueblo government parties to the Aamodt
More informationNORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STATEMENT OF AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION
NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STATEMENT OF AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION This statement is issued and maintained under the authority of section 120.54, Florida Statutes, (F.S.) and chapter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:16-cv-00897-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAYNE LAND AND : MINERAL GROUP, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action
More informationLOWER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AGREEMENT. This LOWER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AGREEMENT ( LB DCP Agreement ) is
LOWER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AGREEMENT This LOWER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AGREEMENT ( LB DCP Agreement ) is made and entered into this day of, 2018, by and between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
More informationDESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: The United States responses to interrogatories of the Cities of Aztec and Bloomfield
STATE OF NEW MEXICO SAN JUAN COUNTY THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. STATE ENGINEER, vs. Plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, THE JICARILLA APACHE
More informationDOCKET NO. D DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. D-2006-022-2 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Teva Pharmaceuticals Groundwater Withdrawal City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This docket is issued in response
More informationSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW v. KEYS PLAINTIFFS, THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE AND THE ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY Section I. Parties The Parties to this Settlement
More informationCENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 1 CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. B235039 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
More informationDISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO Weld County Courthouse 901 9 th Avenue P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 351-7300 Plaintiff: The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation, a Colorado
More informationLaw of the River Apportionment Scheme Short Summary of Laws. (January, 2012)
Law of the River Apportionment Scheme Short Summary of Laws A product of the Colorado River Governance Initiative 1 of the Western Water Policy Program (http://waterpolicy.info) (January, 2012) Summary:
More informationSAN JUAN RIVER BASIN IN NEW MEXICO NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN IN NEW MEXICO NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into as of the dates executed below, by and among the State of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation
More informationSubject: Opinion on Whether Trinity River Record of Decision is a Rule
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 May 14, 2001 The Honorable Doug Ose Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs Committee on Government
More informationThis Agreement, originally entered on the 15 th day of June, 2010, as amended this. day of,, is entered into by and among the City of Oklahoma
1 2 3 Exhibit 4: State of Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, City of Oklahoma City Water Settlement 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMENDED STORAGE CONTRACT
More informationMemorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment JONWRM 050106 This Memorandum is made by and between the following public agencies: SONOMA
More informationRECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992
RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992 Pub. L. No. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600 (1992). TITLE XXXIV-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT Sec. 3401. Short title. Sec. 3402. Purposes.
More informationEnd of a Long Dry Road: Federal Court Of Claims Rejects Klamath Farmers Takings Claims. Douglas MacDougal Marten Law PLLC
E O U T L O O K ENVIRONMENTAL HOT TOPICS AND LEGAL UPDATES Year 2018 Issue 1 Environmental & Natural Resources Law Section OREGON STATE BAR Editorʹs Note: We reproduced the entire article below. Any opinions
More informationDOCKET NO. D DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION. Southeastern Pennsylvania Ground Water Protected Area
DOCKET NO. D-1998-014-3 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Southeastern Pennsylvania Ground Water Protected Area Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation Groundwater Withdrawal Upper Gwynedd Township, Montgomery County,
More information13 LC S A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
House Bill 199 (COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE) By: Representatives Lindsey of the 54 th and Smith of the 70 th A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 To amend Part 2 of Article 1 of Chapter 23 of
More informationDELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPACT (Reprinted 2009)
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPACT 1961 (Reprinted 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I COMPACT Page PREAMBLE..1 ARTICLE 1 SHORT TITLE, DEFINITIONS, PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS...3 Section 1.1 Short title... 3 Section
More informationDOCKET NO. D DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. D-1998-028-3 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Honeybrook Golf Club Ground and Surface Water Withdrawal Honey Brook Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This docket is issued in
More informationIII. SUMMARY OF TULE RIVER TRIBE'S HISTORIC AND FUTURE MONEY DAMAGES CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
III. SUMMARY OF TULE RIVER TRIBE'S HISTORIC AND FUTURE MONEY DAMAGES CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES In 1856 the California Superintendent of Indian Affairs established a Reservation for the Tule River
More informationSenior College Session 2 Classic and Modern Water Law Cases
Senior College Session 2 Classic and Modern Water Law Cases Today s session Classic and contemporary water cases Illustrate development of water law in US Historically significant decisions Tyler v. Wilkinson
More informationMURRAY-DARLING BASIN AGREEMENT
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AGREEMENT June 1992 (with additions to October 2000) ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES Clause Page PART I INTERPRETATION 1 Purpose 8 2 Definitions 8 3 Interpretation 12 PART II APPROVAL AND ENFORCEMENT
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 137, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More informationFOREWORD. Senator Jon Kyl & Ryan A. Smith
FOREWORD Senator Jon Kyl & Ryan A. Smith This Arizona Law Review symposium issue focuses on major water challenges facing Arizona. Given the recent proposal by the Colorado River basin states 1 regarding
More informationDOCKET NO. D CP-3 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION. Southeastern Pennsylvania Ground Water Protected Area
DOCKET NO. D-1997-003 CP-3 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Southeastern Pennsylvania Ground Water Protected Area Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Bubbling Springs Groundwater Withdrawal Whitemarsh Township, Montgomery
More informationWater Law Senior College Jonathan Carlson
Water Law Senior College Jonathan Carlson The problem Future water shortages Supply side challenges: climate variability Demand side challenges: changes in use and demand State laws and administrative
More informationDOCKET NO. D DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION. SPI Pharma, Inc. Groundwater Withdrawal Lewes, Sussex County, Delaware PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NO. D-1978-085-2 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION SPI Pharma, Inc. Groundwater Withdrawal Lewes, Sussex County, Delaware PROCEEDINGS This docket is issued in response to an Application submitted
More informationNew Mexico Water Law Case Capsules 2-1
Water Matters! New Mexico Water Law Case Capsules 2-1 New Mexico Water Law Case Capsules New Mexico has a rich body of water law. This list contains some of the key cases decided in the state and federal
More information2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
31 TX ADC 356.1 Page 1 31 TAC 356.1 Tex. Admin. Code tit. 31, 356.1 356.1. Scope of Subchapter This subchapter governs the board's procedures for reviewing and approving management plans as administratively
More informationNEW MEXICO S EXPERIENCE WITH INTERSTATE WATER AGREEMENTS
New Mexico s Experience with Interstate Water Agreements NEW MEXICO WATER: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OR GUNS, LAWYERS, AND MONEY OCTOBER NEW MEXICO WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE 2005 Estevan López
More informationEnvironmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al. v. East Bay Municipal Utility District et al. Supreme Court of California.
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al. v. East Bay Municipal Utility District et al. Supreme Court of California. 26 Cal.3d 183, 605 P.2d 1, 161 Cal. Rptr. 466 (1980) Three corporations and three individuals,
More informationAllegretti v. County of Imperial: Return to Reason
Allegretti v. County of Imperial: Return to Reason 17 CAL. WATER LAW & POLICY REP. 187 (April 2007) ANTONIO ROSSMANN Rossmann and Moore, LLP; University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)
More informationTHE WATER UTILIZATION (CONTROL AND REGULATION) ACT, 1974 PART I
THE WATER UTILIZATION (CONTROL AND REGULATION) ACT, ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Application of Act to the Government,
More informationA Practitioner s Guide to Instream Flow Transactions in California
A Practitioner s Guide to Instream Flow Transactions in California Appendix A Forbearance Agreement Examples Agreement for the Forbearance of Water for Fisheries Enhancement in the ---------- River System,
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 08/20/2010 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationDECEMBER 13, 2005 GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES AGREEMENT
DECEMBER 13, 2005 GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES AGREEMENT The State of Illinois, The State of Indiana, The State of Michigan, The State of Minnesota, The State of New
More informationCHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY S RESERVATION INDIAN RESERVED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AND WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY S RESERVATION INDIAN RESERVED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AND WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999 VerDate 04-JAN-2000 18:14 Jan 07, 2000 Jkt 079139 PO 00163 Frm 00001
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 WAYNE K. LEMIEUX (SBN 01 W. KEITH LEMIEUX (SBN 0 CHRISTINE CARSON (SBN. LEMIEUX & O'NEILL 1 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 0 Westlake Village, CA 1 Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DESERT WATER AGENCY, et
More informationNew Era of Arizona Water Challenges
New Era of Arizona Water Challenges May 2014 By M. Byron Lewis Water attorney I. INTRODUCTION Arizona is now entering a new era of water challenges prompted by the need to consider, confront, and find
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 17-2147 Document: 01019940123 Date Filed: 02/02/2018 Page: 1 No. 17-2147 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. State Engineer, Plaintiff-Appellees,
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 52
SESSION OF 2015 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 52 As Amended by House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources Brief* Augmentation SB 52 would add augmentation to the actions the Chief Engineer
More informationCalifornia Ground Water: Legal Problems
California Law Review Volume 45 Issue 5 Article 8 December 1957 California Ground Water: Legal Problems Wells A. Hutchins Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview
More informationDOCKET NO. D DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. D-2012-025-1 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Cambridge Lee Industries, LLC Surface Water Withdrawal Ontelaunee Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This docket is issued in response
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:01-cv-00591-MBH Document 455-1 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Klamath Irrigation District, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 01-591L United States, Hon. Marian
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 17-40 & 17-42 In the Supreme Court of the United States DESERT WATER AGENCY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, ET AL., Respondents; COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, ET
More informationSTATE OF DELAWARE. Sediment & Stormwater Law (with Amendments)
STATE OF DELAWARE Sediment & Stormwater Law (with Amendments) Effective Date: June 15, 1990 DELAWARE STATE SENATE 135TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE BILL NO. 359 INTRODUCED: MAR 20, 1990 SIGNED: JUN 15, 1990
More informationDOCKET NO. D DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. D-1992-024-3 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Bart Golf Club, Inc. Hickory Valley Golf Club Surface Water Withdrawal New Hanover Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This docket
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA
John B. Weldon, Jr., 0001 Mark A. McGinnis, 01 Scott M. Deeny, 0 SALMON, LEWIS & WELDON, P.L.C. 0 East Camelback Road, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 01 (0) 01-00 jbw@slwplc.com mam@slwplc.com smd@slwplc.com
More informationUnited States v. Ohio
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 United States v. Ohio Hannah R. Seifert Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana, hannah.seifert@umontana.edu
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 24, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 24, 2006 Session ANNA LOU WILLIAMS, PLANTATION GARDENS, D/B/A TOBACCO PLANTATION AND BEER BARN, D/B/A JIM'S FLEA MARKET v. GERALD F. NICELY An Appeal
More information33 USC 652. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER 13 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 652. Upper Mississippi River Management (a) Short title; Congressional declaration of intent (1) This section may be
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/21/00 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF BARSTOW et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) ) v. ) ) S071728 MOJAVE WATER AGENCY et al., ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E017881, E018923 Defendants, Cross-
More informationSTORM DRAINAGE WORKS APPROVAL POLICY
Nova Scotia Environment and Labour STORM DRAINAGE WORKS APPROVAL POLICY Approval Date: December 10, 2002 Effective Date: December 10, 2002 Approved By: Ron L Esperance Version Control: Latest revision
More informationLIST OF CHAPTERS VOLUME 1. PLUMBING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE COLORADO DOCTRINE OF PRIOR APPROPRIATION Hon. Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
LIST OF CHAPTERS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 PLUMBING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE COLORADO DOCTRINE OF
More information{3} In April or May, 1949, appellants' predecessors in title commenced drilling for the
STATE EX REL. REYNOLDS V. MENDENHALL, 1961-NMSC-083, 68 N.M. 467, 362 P.2d 998 (S. Ct. 1961) STATE of New Mexico ex rel. S. E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, and Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District,
More informationReport on, Discussion and Consideration of Action for Domestic Agreements Necessary to Implement Minute 323 of the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty
Agenda Number 7. CONTACT: Chuck Cullom ccullom@cap-az.com 623-869-2665 MEETING DATE: August 3, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Report on, Discussion and Consideration of Action for Domestic Agreements Necessary to Implement
More informationCase 1:05-cv JPW Document 226 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:05-cv-00168-JPW Document 226 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff, No. 05-168L Honorable John P. Weise v. UNITED STATES,
More informationWater Rights: Is the Quechan Tribe Barred from Seeking a Determination of Reservation Boundaries in Indian Country
University of Tulsa College of Law TU Law Digital Commons Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works 1996 Water Rights: Is the Quechan Tribe Barred from Seeking a Determination
More informationNorth Platte Article 1
North Platte Article 1 The purpose of this series is to summarize the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Modified Decree that were entered by the United States Supreme Court to resolve Nebraska
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE STATE OF NEVADA ROBERT B. GRIFFITH WATER PROJECT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR
1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE STATE OF ROBERT B. GRIFFITH WATER PROJECT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR Contract No. -0-0-W000 Assignment No. 1 AMENDATORY, SUPPLEMENTARY
More informationSwaziland: Water Act, 2003
Swaziland: Water Act, 2003 This document is available at www.ielrc.org/content/e0309.pdf Act Number 7 of 2003 The Water Act came into effect on 5 March 2003. AN ACT entitled An Act to repeal and replace
More informationMINUTES. TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS November 18, :00 P.M Banducci Road
MINUTES TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 4:00 P.M. 22901 Banducci Road Item 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Directors Present: Hadley, Hall, Pack, Prel
More information