Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft <br /> <br />003Ja6 <br /> <br />Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating <br />and Managing Water Resources in California <br /> <br />recognized in some form by most states--embodies the principle that the state holds title to such, <br /> <br /> <br />properties within the state in trust for the beneficial use of the public, and that public rights of <br /> <br /> <br />access to and use of tidelands and navigable waters are inalienable. Traditional public trust rights <br /> <br /> <br />include navigation, commerce, and fishing, California law has expanded the traditional public <br /> <br />trust uses to include protection of fis~ and wildlife, preserving trust lands in their natural <br /> <br /> <br />condition for scientific study and scenic enjoyment, and related open-space uses. <br /> <br />In 1983, the California Supreme Court extended the public trust doctrine's limitation on <br /> <br /> <br />private rights to appropriative water rights. In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of <br /> <br />Alpine County, the court held that water right licenses held by the city of Los Angeles to divert <br /> <br /> <br />water from streams tributary to Mono Lake remain subject to ongoing State supervision under <br /> <br />the public trust doctrine. The court helel that public trust uses must be considered and balanced <br /> <br /> <br />when rights to divert water away from navigable water bodies are considered. The court also held <br /> <br />that California's appropriative rights system and the public trust doctrine embody important <br /> <br /> <br />precepts which". . . make the law more responsive to the diverse needs and interests involved in <br /> <br /> <br />planning and allocation of water resources." Consequently, in issuing or reconsidering any rights <br /> <br />to appropriate and divert water, the State must balance public trust needs with the needs for other <br /> <br />beneficial uses of water. In 1994, the SWRCB issued a final decision on Mono Lake (Decision <br /> <br />1631) in which it balanced the various uses in determining the appropriate terms and conditions <br /> <br />of the water rights permit for the city of Los Angeles. The public trust doctrine will also be <br /> <br />applied by the SWRCB in its current consideration of water rights in the Bay-Delta. <br /> <br />Since the 1983 National Audubon decision, the public trust doctrine has been involved in <br /> <br /> <br />several other cases. In United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (commonly <br /> <br />referred to as the Racanelli Decision and discussed below), the State Court of Appeal reiterated <br /> <br />that the public trust doctrine is a significant limitation on water rights. The public trust doctrine <br /> <br /> <br />was also a basis for the decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility <br /> <br />District. In this case, EDF claimed that EBMUD should not contract with USBR for water <br /> <br /> <br />diverted from the American River upstream the Sacramento mban area in a manner that would <br /> <br />harm instream uses including recreational, scenic, and fish and wildlife preservation purposes. <br /> <br /> <br />The Superior Court upheld the validity ofEBMUD's contract with USBR, but placed limitations <br /> <br /> <br />on the timing and amounts of deliveries to EBMUD. As a result of these cases, the SWRCB now <br /> <br />2A-4 <br />