PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Audubon case expanded the appli. cation of the public trust to include non~ navigable tributaries to a navigable body of water. 82 CALIFORNIA WATER Gold Run Ditch, page 151. When the injunction was issued, hydraulic mining was producing $10 million worth of gold per yearll The de- cision, relying on the public trust doctrine, marked California's transition from a mining economy to a commercial and agricultural economy (33 Cal.3d, page 436)- As we have already said, the rights of the people in the navigable rivers of the State are paramount and controlling. The State holds the absolute right to all navigable waters and the soils under them, subject, of course, to aoy rights in them which may have been sur- rendered to the general Government. (Citation omitted.) The soil she holds as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people; aod she may, by her legislature, grant it to an individual; but she cannot grant the rights of the people to the use of the navigable wa- ters flowing over it; these are inalienable. Aoy grant of the soil, therefore, would be subject to the paramount rights of the people to the use of the highway. And such was the doctrine of the common law. 'The jus privatum,' says Lord Hale, in De Jure Maris, p. 22, 'must not prejudice the jus publicum, wherewith public rivers and arms of the sea are affected to public use,' It is, therefore, beyond the power of legislatures to destroy or abridge such rights, or to authorize their impairment. Gold Run Ditch, pages 151-152. The Gold Run Ditch opinion took on added significance when the court in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, relied on it to expand the application of the public trust doctrine to non-navigable streams. Although the Gold Run Ditch case did not involve the diversion of water, the court inter- preted its principles to apply to a situation in which diversion from a non-navigable tributary impairs the trust values of a downstream river or lake. The court stated that, if it applied to fills which im- paired trust values (as was the case in Gold Run Ditch), the public trust doctrine also applied to extractions of waters that impair trust values. Audubon, page 436. In Marks v. Whitney, (1971) 6 Ca1.3d 251, the California Supreme Court expanded the public trust beyond the three traditional uses of navigation, commerce, and fisheries. Marks was a "qniet title" ac- tion involving a boundary dispute. The defendant was an owner of tidelands and sought to fill and develop them. Plaintiff argued that this development would cut off his right, as a member of the public, 11 Dunning, "The Significance of California's Public Trust Easement for California's Water Rights Law," page 367.