The California Supreme Court made clear the power of the State Water Resources Control Board to define and limit prospective riparian water rights owners in the landmark decision of In re Waters of Long Valley Creek Stream Sys., (1979) 25 Cal 3rd. 339. The facts in the case are particularly instructive given the present supply of water in California. Litigation regarding water rights, dating to 1883, was part of the underlying history of the area which involved melting snow from the Sierra Nevada which flowed to the main tributaries of Long Valley Creek: Purdy Creek and Balls Creek. The remaining water flowed to lands where there is only enough water to irrigate a small portion of land.
Nine claimants filed a petition in 1966 with the Board asking for statutory adjudication of all water rights in the stream system. The Board heard 234 claims and 42 contests regarding the rights of persons to the stream system. The action itself arose from a statutory proceeding to adjudicate the rights of all claimants to the waters of the Long Valley Creek Stream System (stream system) in Lassen, Sierra and Plumas Counties. The stream system contains a 465 square-mile watershed and lies astride the California-Nevada border with the uppermost extremity northwest of Reno, Nevada.
Donald Ramelli filed a notice of exceptions in the superior court pursuant to Water Code section 2757. Ramelli had irrigated 89 acres of his land for over 60 years. His claim to the board was for prospective riparian rights in the creek for an additional 2,884 acres. He received varying amounts of water for the 89 acres on which he was currently exercising his riparian rights. The Board then proceeded to extinguish entirely his claim as a riparian landowner to the future use of water with respect to the remaining 2,884 acres. The trial court denied Ramelli’s exceptions and entered a decree that was consistent with the Board’s determination.
It is exactly this type of bureaucratic “seizure” of water rights that can and will occur if water rights holders do not fight back, as is shown in the following paragraphs.
Mr. Ramelli did fight back and his case was taken up by the California Supreme. The Court began its opinion in Ramelli’s appeal by declining to construe the statutory adjudication procedure for water issues granted to the State Water Resources Control Board, as authorizing the Board to extinguish altogether future riparian rights. In re Waters, supra at 662,663. The Court went on to hold, however, that nothing the Court found in the language or history of the statute, precluded the Legislature from giving the Board broad authority to determine the nature of future riparian rights. Waters, supra at 358.
The Court was quick to point out that the rights of a riparian owner are not destroyed or impaired by the fact that he/she has not yet used the water upon the riparian lands, and therefore that the riparian right exists, whether exercised or not. The court also held that a dormant riparian right is paramount to active appropriative rights; and that in resolving a dispute between a riparian who claims a prospective water right and other claimants, it may be proper for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over the matter so that the riparian’s prospective right can be quantified at the time he decides to exercise it. Waters, supra at 347.
The Court articulated two important principles: first, if a statute is fair and reasonable, courts should presume that the Legislature intended the statute to be construed in a fashion that would avoid the issue of unconstitutionality, and consequently the risk of judicial invalidation, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed; secondly, the Court declined to construe the statutory adjudication procedure as authorizing the Board to extinguish altogether future unexercised riparian rights in the absence of proof that the reasonable and beneficial use of the waters in the Long Valley Creek cannot be equally well promoted by placing limitations on Ramelli’s future riparian right other than by complete extinction.
The argument of the Attorney General’s office that “the facts of this case don’t show any reasonable possibility whatsoever that any uses on Ramelli’s land would be more reasonable than the uses which are currently in existence” was not persuasive. Even the nature of this argument is beyond over-bearing and smacks of “the government knows best” brand of hubris.
The Court concluded finally that the Board may not extinguish a riparian’s future claim when the Board has not established that the imposition of other less drastic limitations on the claim would be less effective in promoting the most reasonable and beneficial use of the stream system. In re Waters, supra at 359.
The Long Valley case still has precedential effect as the recent case of Light v State Water Resources, (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1463 illustrates. The Light opinion acknowledges that California courts have never defined, or even attempted to determine what constitutes an unreasonable use of water. The Light opinion holds that what constitutes an unreasonable use of water depends largely on the circumstances of each particular situation, citing Peabody v City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal 2d. 351 at 368. The Light opinion goes on to state that the reasonableness of a riparian use cannot be determined without considering the effect of such use on all the needs.
All owners of riparian rights need to be aware, and alerted that the State Water Board can limit and/or take your rights if they are not legally protected, and those rights need to be protected both legally and factually.
It is in the best interest of water rights holders to seek legal advice now, proactively, to understand the implications of this opinion, and its on-going authority. William K. Koska and Associates have the experience and resources to assist you with any questions/concerns you may have as a water rights holder. We would be pleased to review your rights and offer guidance if there are steps you should take to protect those rights now, and in the future.
See Part 1 here.
Author – William K. Koska, Law Offices of William K. Koska and Associates, Attorney.
Nine claimants filed a petition in 1966 with the Board asking for statutory adjudication of all water rights in the stream system. The Board heard 234 claims and 42 contests regarding the rights of persons to the stream system. The action itself arose from a statutory proceeding to adjudicate the rights of all claimants to the waters of the Long Valley Creek Stream System (stream system) in Lassen, Sierra and Plumas Counties. The stream system contains a 465 square-mile watershed and lies astride the California-Nevada border with the uppermost extremity northwest of Reno, Nevada.
Donald Ramelli filed a notice of exceptions in the superior court pursuant to Water Code section 2757. Ramelli had irrigated 89 acres of his land for over 60 years. His claim to the board was for prospective riparian rights in the creek for an additional 2,884 acres. He received varying amounts of water for the 89 acres on which he was currently exercising his riparian rights. The Board then proceeded to extinguish entirely his claim as a riparian landowner to the future use of water with respect to the remaining 2,884 acres. The trial court denied Ramelli’s exceptions and entered a decree that was consistent with the Board’s determination.
It is exactly this type of bureaucratic “seizure” of water rights that can and will occur if water rights holders do not fight back, as is shown in the following paragraphs.
Mr. Ramelli did fight back and his case was taken up by the California Supreme. The Court began its opinion in Ramelli’s appeal by declining to construe the statutory adjudication procedure for water issues granted to the State Water Resources Control Board, as authorizing the Board to extinguish altogether future riparian rights. In re Waters, supra at 662,663. The Court went on to hold, however, that nothing the Court found in the language or history of the statute, precluded the Legislature from giving the Board broad authority to determine the nature of future riparian rights. Waters, supra at 358.
The Court was quick to point out that the rights of a riparian owner are not destroyed or impaired by the fact that he/she has not yet used the water upon the riparian lands, and therefore that the riparian right exists, whether exercised or not. The court also held that a dormant riparian right is paramount to active appropriative rights; and that in resolving a dispute between a riparian who claims a prospective water right and other claimants, it may be proper for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over the matter so that the riparian’s prospective right can be quantified at the time he decides to exercise it. Waters, supra at 347.
The Court articulated two important principles: first, if a statute is fair and reasonable, courts should presume that the Legislature intended the statute to be construed in a fashion that would avoid the issue of unconstitutionality, and consequently the risk of judicial invalidation, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed; secondly, the Court declined to construe the statutory adjudication procedure as authorizing the Board to extinguish altogether future unexercised riparian rights in the absence of proof that the reasonable and beneficial use of the waters in the Long Valley Creek cannot be equally well promoted by placing limitations on Ramelli’s future riparian right other than by complete extinction.
The argument of the Attorney General’s office that “the facts of this case don’t show any reasonable possibility whatsoever that any uses on Ramelli’s land would be more reasonable than the uses which are currently in existence” was not persuasive. Even the nature of this argument is beyond over-bearing and smacks of “the government knows best” brand of hubris.
The Court concluded finally that the Board may not extinguish a riparian’s future claim when the Board has not established that the imposition of other less drastic limitations on the claim would be less effective in promoting the most reasonable and beneficial use of the stream system. In re Waters, supra at 359.
The Long Valley case still has precedential effect as the recent case of Light v State Water Resources, (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1463 illustrates. The Light opinion acknowledges that California courts have never defined, or even attempted to determine what constitutes an unreasonable use of water. The Light opinion holds that what constitutes an unreasonable use of water depends largely on the circumstances of each particular situation, citing Peabody v City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal 2d. 351 at 368. The Light opinion goes on to state that the reasonableness of a riparian use cannot be determined without considering the effect of such use on all the needs.
All owners of riparian rights need to be aware, and alerted that the State Water Board can limit and/or take your rights if they are not legally protected, and those rights need to be protected both legally and factually.
It is in the best interest of water rights holders to seek legal advice now, proactively, to understand the implications of this opinion, and its on-going authority. William K. Koska and Associates have the experience and resources to assist you with any questions/concerns you may have as a water rights holder. We would be pleased to review your rights and offer guidance if there are steps you should take to protect those rights now, and in the future.
See Part 1 here.
Author – William K. Koska, Law Offices of William K. Koska and Associates, Attorney.
RSS Feed