City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency
| Decision Date | 21 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. S071728.,S071728. |
| Citation | 5 P.3d 853,99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294,23 Cal.4th 1224 |
| Parties | CITY OF BARSTOW et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MOJAVE WATER AGENCY et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents; Jess Ranch Water Company, Cross-defendant and Appellant. Mojave Water Agency et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents, v. Manuel Cardozo et al., Cross-defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied October 25, 2000.1
Covington & Crowe, Robert E. Dougherty and Eric S. Vail, Ontario, for Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al.
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Thomas W. Birmingham, Janet K. Goldsmith, Sacramento, and Jon D. Rubin, for Westlands Water District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al.
Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer, Kevin M. O'Brien, Steven P. Saxton, David R.E. Aladjem and Gwyn-Mohr P. Tully, for Northern California Water Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al.
M. David Stirling, Robin L. Rivett, Sacramento, and David E. Haddock, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al.
De Cuir & Somach, Stuart L. Somach and Elizabeth W. Johnson, Sacramento, for Cities of Fairfield, Vacaville and Vallejo as Amici Curiae on behalf of Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al.
Lemieux & O'Neill and Wayne K. Lemieux, Westlake Village, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al.
Gutierrez & Preciado, Gutierrez, Preciado & House, Calvin House and Clifton A. Baker, Pasadena, for Cross-defendant and Appellant Jess Ranch Water Company.
Gary A. Ledford as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Cross-defendants and Appellants Manuel Cardozo et al. and Jess Ranch Water Company.
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, Arthur G. Kidman, David D. Boyer and Bradley D. Pierce, Costa Mesa, for Plaintiffs and Respondents City of Barstow and Southern California Water Company.
Hatch and Parent, Scott S. Slater, Robert J. Saperstein, Stephanie C. Osier, Santa Barbara, and Kristen T. Derscheid, for California Water Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents City of Barstow and Southern California Water Company.
Brunick, Alvarez & Battersby, William J. Brunick, Amy Greyson, San Bernardino, Jeffery L. Caulfield and Mark C. Potter, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent and for Cross-complainant and Respondent Mojave Water Agency.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Charles W. Getz IV, Assistant Attorney General, and Marilyn H. Levin, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent and for
Cross-complainant and Respondent California Department of Fish and Game.
Alan K. Marks, County Counsel, Thomas L. Krahelski and Paul M. St. John, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents and for Cross-complainants and Respondents Baldy Mesa Water District, Juniper Riviera County Water District, San Bernardino County Daggett Airport and San Bernardino County Service Areas 29, 42, 64, 70C, 70G, 70J and 70L.
Boyd, Hill, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Frederic A. Fudacz and John Ossiff, Los Angeles, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent and for Cross-complainant and Respondent Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company.
Monteleone & McCrory and Thomas P. McGuire, Los Angeles, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents and for Cross-complainants and Respondents Victor Valley Water District and City of Victorville.
Best, Best & Krieger, Eric L. Garner and Arthur L. Littleworth, Riverside, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent and for Cross-complainant and Respondent Rancho Las Flores Limited Partnership.
Therese Exline Parker, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents and for Cross-complainants and Respondents Alfredo Arguelles, Richard F. Barak, Charles Bell, Lillian Borgogno, John Thomas Carter, Marshall Chuang, George Ronald Dahlquist, Alan DeJong, Frank T. Duran, Trinidad L. Gaeta, Wayne D. Gesiriech, S. Harold Gold, Ciril Gomez Living Trust, Daniel C. Gray, Karen Gray, Nick Grill, Merlin Gulbranson Excavating, Scott Hert, Melvin Hill, John Hosking, Jean Hosking, Larry Johnson, Hoon Ho Kim, H. Leslie Levin, J. Peter Lounsbury, Ken Luth, The 160 Newberry Ranch Limited Partnership, Meadowbrook Dairy, Newberry Ranch, George Parker, Ruth Parker, Trinidad Perez, Daniel Pettigrew, Howard Pettigrew, John S. Pettis, Joan C. Randolph, Bill Resseque, Charles Short, Robert A. Smith, Wayne A. Soppeland, Stanley Stewart, Patricia Stewart, Edward W. Stringer, Thomas Taylor, Carole Taylor, Dale Thomas Ronald Thomas, James A. Thompson, Cornelius Van Diest, Van Leuwen Family Trust, Albert H. Vogler, Ykema Trust, Ykema Harmsen Dairy, Keith Young and Margie Young.
Redwine and Sherrill and Steven B. Abbott, Riverside, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents and for Cross-complainants and Respondents Lake Arrowhead Community Services District, Southdown, Inc., and Jean D. DeBlasis as Trustee of the Kemper Campbell Ranch Trust.
Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden and Michael Duane Davis, San Bernardino, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents and for Cross-complainants and Respondents Baldy Mesa Water District, Silver Lakes Association and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation.
Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curley & Slough, Brea, Richards, Watson & Gershon, James L. Markman, Los Angeles, and Boyd L. Hill, Irvine, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent and for Cross-complainant and Respondent Hesperia Water District.
Nino J. Mascolo and Douglas P. Ditonto, Rosemead, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent and for Cross-complainant and Respondent Southern California Edison Company.
Morrison & Foerster, Kevin T. Haroff, Palto Alto, and Kimberly McMorrow, for Santa Clara Valley Water District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents and Cross-complainants and Respondents Mojave Water Agency et al.
Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote, John Penn Carter, El Centro and Paul D. Engstrand, for Imperial Irrigation District as Amicus Curiae. Nancy N. McDonough, Sacramento, and David J. Guy, for California Farm Bureau Federation as Amicus Curiae.
Boyd, Hill, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Frederic A. Fudacz and John Ossiff, Los Angeles, for Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and Raymond Basin Management Board as Amici Curiae.
Louise Renne, City Attorney (San Francisco), Vicki Clayton and Donn W. Furman, Deputy City Attorneys; Ellison & Schneider, Anne J. Schneider, Sacramento, and Barbara A. Brenner, for City and County of San Francisco as Amicus Curiae.
O'Laughlin & Paris and Tim O'Laughlin, for San Joaquin Tributaries Association as Amicus Curiae.
Minasian, Spruance, Baber, Meith, Soares & Sexton, Oroville, for San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority as Amicus Curiae.
We granted review to determine whether a trial court may definitively resolve water right priorities in an overdrafted basin with a "physical solution" that relies on the equitable apportionment doctrine but does not consider the affected owners' legal water rights in the basin.2 We conclude it may not, and affirm the Court of Appeal judgment in that respect. In the second part of this opinion, we address whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that a water producer who desired to stipulate to the physical solution was fairly apportioned its share of water. We conclude the Court of Appeal erred on this point. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the Court of Appeal judgment.3
The Mojave River originates in the San Bernardino Mountains, where rain and snow runoff give rise to the West Fork of the Mojave River and Deep Creek. These tributaries join at the mountain foothills in an area called The Forks to form the Mojave River. From The Forks, the Mojave River flows approximately 90 miles north to Victorville and Helendale, northeast to Barstow, east to Afton, and finally to its terminus in Soda Lake.
The Mojave River Basin area extends approximately 3,600 square miles and encompasses several cities, including Victorville, Hesperia, Apple Valley, Adelanto, and Barstow.4 The Mojave River Basin is divided into five hydrologic subareas: The Helendale Fault separates the Alto and Centro Basin subareas; the Waterman Fault separates the Centro and Baja Basin subareas; the Oeste Basin subarea is west of the Alto Basin subarea; and the Este Basin subarea is east of the Alto Basin subarea and south of the Centro Basin subarea. Because these basins are interconnected, some of the surface inflow to one basin is outflow from another. The groundwater and surface water within the entire Mojave River Basin constitute a single interrelated source.
The Mojave River, cyclically replenished from rainfall in the San Bernardino Mountains, is the main water source for the Mojave River Basin. The river's flow in the downstream area, however, has decreased in recent years. Groundwater extractions in the Alto Basin have lowered the water table, increasing the Alto Basin's storm flow absorption. As more water is absorbed in the Alto Basin, less water reaches the downstream area.
Before the 1950's, the Mojave River Basin economy primarily relied on transportation, mining, military, and agriculture. The economy and investment in the area soon grew and, by the mid-1950's, demand for water in the basin exceeded the natural supply, resulting in an overdraft condition. Development continued, particularly during the 1970's and 1980's. By 1990, the basin's population was approximately 235,000, more than 10 times the population in 1950. The largest increase in overdraft in the basin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. L. A. Cnty. Waterworks Dist. No. 40 (In re Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases)
...holders generally follows the familiar principle that ‘ "the one first in time is the first in right." ’ ([ Barstow, supra , 23 Cal.4th] at p. 1241 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 5 P.3d 853].) With groundwater there is an exception, however, that gives rise to a third category of rights. Under certai......
-
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
...role in getting water to those who need it, such as the water clearinghouse.Abatti's reliance on City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 5 P.3d 853 is misplaced. In that case, the superior court entered a judgment in a water dispute without regard ......
-
State v. Pricewaterhousecoopers
...(1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 276-277, 123 Cal.Rptr. 1, 537 P.2d 1250, disapproved on another point in City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1248, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 5 P.3d 853.) Defendants' argument that in the absence of express words to the contrary, states and politica......
-
Uzyel v. Kadisha
...to the trustee's misconduct or, on the other hand, too remote to justify disgorgement. ( City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1256, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 5 P.3d 853 [stating that the trial court's exercise of its equitable powers in awarding a remedy is properly revi......
-
Adverse Possession Between Public Entities: A Loophole Or A Pipedream
...v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199,273-277 (disapproved of by, City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, on other grounds (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 1224)). Thus, at least in the state of California, no such loophole exists and public entities are also barred from acquiring property interes......
-
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Common Law of Groundwater Rights: Finding a Consistent Path Forward for Groundwater Allocation.
...from a ground water supply under a given set of conditions without causing an undesirable result"); City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, 5 P.3d 853,862 (Cal. (holding that a user of overlying groundwater rights is restricted to reasonable beneficial use, "consonant with article X, sectio......
-
California's Efforts to Solve Its Water Shortage: Can They Succeed?
...25 Cal. 3d 339, 354 (1979) .29. Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Super. Ct., 33 Cal. 3d 4, 19 (1983).30. City of Barstow v. Mohave Water Agency, 23 Cal. 4th 1224, 1243 (2000).31. See Cal. Trout, Inc. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 207 Cal. App. 3d 585, 622, 625 (1989).32. See id. at 624.33. Id. at ......
-
California Mandates Groundwater Regulation Through Local "sustainability Plans" Starting in 2020
...impose an interim plan does not alter law establishing water rights priorities).68. See, e.g., City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, 23 Cal. 4th 1224 (2000); City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, 14 Cal. 3d 199 (1975); City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra, 33 Cal. 2d 908 (1949); Ci......
-
An Aquifer Betrayed: the Monterey Desalinization Project at Odds With California Water Law
...with article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. (City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1240, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 5 P.3d 853.) Allegretti's claim to an unlimited right to use as much water as it needs to irrigate flies in the face of that standard."22 Thus......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 23, § 877.4 Exceptions to Curtailment For Voluntary Water Sharing Agreements
...and 1058.5, Water Code; National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419; City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224; Light v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1463; and Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State of California (20......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 23, § 877.6 Rediversion of Water Previously Stored In Lake Mendocino. [Repealed]
...Cal.3d 419; Light v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1463; and City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224. ...
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 23, § 878.4 Local Cooperative Solutions
...Water Code. Reference: Sections 109, 1010, 1011, 1011.5 and 1051.5, Water Code; and City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224. ...
-
Chapter 606, SB 609 – Water Omnibus Act of 2001.
...to that lawsuit. (c) The California Supreme Court has published a decision in the case of City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 1224. (d) An issue has arisen as to whether the parties to the stipulation having water rights, by executing the stipulation, waived those wate......