Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . . <br />-. <br />o 9 ~h~ court held that the public trust doctrine and the appro- <br />priative water rights system are parts of an integrated system <br /> <br />of California water law. Therefore, the public trust doctrine <br />may be used to seek reconsideration of water right permits held <br />since 1940 by the City of Los Angeles. The court found that the <br />public trust doctrine, as it has evolved in California, protects <br />navigable waters, and therefore protects Mono Lake which is a <br />navigable waterway. The court noted: "In the case before us, <br />the salient fact is that no responsible body has ever determined <br />the impact of diverting the entire flow of the Mono Lake tributaries <br />into the Los Angeles aqueduct." Influenced by this fact, the <br />court found that Los Angeles' water rights should be reviewed <br />to weigh the benefits versus the costs of the diversion. Further, <br />the court noted that, "Once the state has approved an appropriation, <br />the public trust imposes a duty of continuing supervision over <br />the taking and use of the appropriated water. In e~ercising its <br />sovereign power to allocate water resources in the public interest, <br />the state is not confined by past allocation decisions which may <br />be incorrect in light of current knowledge or inconsistent with <br />current needs." <br /> <br />The potential implications with respect to water conservation <br /> <br />and more efficient use are obvious. However, outside California <br /> <br />the relationship between the public trust doctrine and water use <br /> <br /> <br />has yet to be defined. Using the doctrine to require change in <br /> <br />traditional uses and methods of use would raise serious questions <br /> <br />of equity and of the nature of water rights as constitutionally <br /> <br />protected property rights, not to mention the problems with <br /> <br />political acceptability. <br /> <br />'14 <br />