PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Today, most significant water rights lawsuits involve either public agencies or environmental groups, or both. 64 CALIFORNIA WATER of water. Corona Foothill Lemon Company v. Lillibridge (1937) 8 Cal.2d 522, 524-525; Phoenix Water Company v. Fletcher (1863) 23 Cal. 481, 485; Smith v. Wheeler (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 451, 455- 456; Bonetti v. Ruiz (1910) 15 Cal.App. 7, 10. Examples of situations where the injury was not sufficient to warrant injunctive relief include situations where enough water is available for all uses, the use to be protected is wasteful, or damages are only nominal. San Bernardino v. Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7, 20; Hufford v. Dye (1912) 162 Cal. 147, 155-156; Nevada County & Sacramento Canal Co. v. Kidd (1869) 37 Cal. 282, 306-307. Parties Entitled to Relief. Any party with an interest in the water, or the wrongful use or diversion of the water, may bring an action for injunctive relief. Thus, an individual who has acquired the right to di- vert water from a stream throngh appropriation or prescription may enjoin the subsequent diversion of water from the stream at points above the place of diversion if it can be shown that the subsequent di- version will diminish the flow of the stream or would otherwise injure the water right. Antioch v. Williams Irr. Dist. (1922) 188 Cal. 451, 457. Both riparians and owners of underground water rights can bring an action for injunctive relief. Tulare, pages 533-535; Pasadena, pages 930-931. Consumer groups and governmental entities can also bring an action for injunctive relief, but an injunction will not be granted if the injury can be redressed in another manner or is insub- stantial. Lamb v. California Water & Tel. Co. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 33, 44. Today, however, most significant water rights lawsuits are brought either by public agencies to enforce their own rights or in a representative capacity on behalf of their inhabitants, or by envi- ronmental groups. See, for example, U.S. v. Fallbrook Public Utility District (1965) 347 F.2d 48; Orange County Water District v. Riverside (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 137; National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419. The relatively liberal standing requirements and the ability of environmental groups to collect at- torneys' fees have increased this type of water rights litigation. Because of the complexity and expense of this litigation, many suits result finally in a stipulated judgment. See, for example, Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., (1969) Orange County Superior Court, No. 117628, settling downstream claims to waters in the Santa Ana River system after some six years of litigation. Settlement also allows the development of innovative and finely tailored provisions that best meet the needs of a local area. The stipulated judgment in Chino Basin Municipal Water District v.