PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

By approving the State Water Project. did the California legislature make a valid dis~ position of trust assets that exempts the water supply olthe Sl1P from public trust obligations? 84 CALIFORNIA WATER or necessarily implied, and will not be implied if any other inference is reasonably possible. California Fish, page 597. The State Water Project is an example of this issue. After many studies of California's water needs, the State Water Project was approved by the legislature, with a yield of 4.2 million acre-feet annually. Project facilities were designed and constructed to pro- duce that yield, and contracts were entered into to supply that maximum entitlement. The size of the project, the various facilities to be constructed, and its financing were all before the legislature and the voters when the project was approved in 1959-1960. Goodman v. County of Riverside (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 900, 908. Specific water rights for the project were to be issued by the State Board, and construction of the project was well under way before the first water rights permits were issued13 By its action, did the legislature make a disposition of trust assets that exempts the water supply of the State Water Project from any public trust obligations? The legislature has the power to sanction one public trust use at the expense of another. Colberg, Inc. v. California Dept. of Public Works (1967) 67 Cal.2d 408 (cited with approval in Audubon, page 439 fn. 21). This could occur in the case of a dam that enhances navigation and recreation but adversely impacts spawning habitat or the ability of fish to spawn upstream. However, not all pub- lic uses served by a water project are trust uses. In Audubon, the California Supreme Court specifically rejected the contention that the state can abrogate the public trust merely by authorizing a use inconsistent with the trust. Audubon, page 439 fn. 21. Furthermore, the contention that all public uses are "trust uses" and thus there are no restrictions on the state's ability to allocate trust property was also rejected. Audubon, page 440. This holding creates some uncertainty as to the limits of the state's ability to dispose of trust resources. The critical issue is whether the intended yield of the State Water Project is subject to reduction in order to provide water for public trust uses. Audubon seems to hold that water rights "ex- pressly conferred by the legislature would not be limited by the public trust doctrine." Audubon, page 445 fn. 24. If that is true, it seems that an action by the State Board should be nothing more, insofar as the public trust is concerned, than the administrative pro- cedure for implementing the legislature's directive. On the other hand, the various State Water Project contracts do not guarantee a 13 See S.W.R.C.B. Decision 1275 (1967) and S.W.R.C.B. Decision 1291 (1967); cited in Littleworth, "The Public Trust v. The Public Interest," page 1220, rn. 97.