Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 18 June 2020
• Docket Number: C085762
• Citation: 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 509,50 Cal.App.5th 976
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: STANFORD VINA RANCH IRRIGATION COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of California et al., Defendants and Respondents.

50 Cal.App.5th 976

264 Cal.Rptr.3d 509

STANFORD VINA RANCH IRRIGATION COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.STATE of California et al., Defendants and Respondents.

C085762

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed June 18, 2020

As Modified July 8, 2020

MINASIAN, MEITH, SOARES, SEXTON & COOPER, Paul R. Minasian, Oroville, and Jackson A. Minasian for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Anthony L. François and Jeremy Talcott, Sacramento for Pacific Legal Foundation; DOWNEY BRAND, Kevin M. O'Brien, David R.E. Aladjem, Samuel Bivins, Sacramento, for Northern California Water Association; O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS, Tim O'Laughlin, Valerie C. Kincaid, and Ryan E. Stager for San Joaquin Tributaries Authority as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Randy L. Barrow, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Carolyn Nelson Rowan and William Jenkins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.

HOCH, J.

Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Company (Stanford Vina) sued the State Water Resources Control Board (the Board), among other defendants, challenging the Board's issuance of certain temporary emergency regulations in 2014 and 2015, during the height of one of the most severe droughts in California's history. The challenged regulations established minimum flow requirements on three tributaries of the Sacramento River, including Deer Creek in Tehama County, in order to protect two threatened species of anadromous fish, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, during their respective migratory cycles. Stanford Vina further challenged the Board's implementation of those regulations by issuing temporary curtailment orders limiting the company's diversion of water from Deer Creek for certain periods of time during those years in order to maintain the required minimum flow of water. Judgment was entered in favor of the Board and other defendants. Stanford Vina appeals.

We affirm. As we shall explain, the Board possesses broad authority to regulate the unreasonable use of water in this state by various means, including the adoption of regulations establishing minimum flow requirements protecting the migration of threatened fish species during drought conditions and declaring diversions of water unreasonable where such diversions would threaten to cause the flow of water in the creeks in question to drop below required levels. Adoption of such regulations is a quasi-legislative act that is reviewable by ordinary mandamus. Concluding the Board's adoption of the challenged regulations was not arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support, nor did the Board fail to follow required procedures, we cannot override the Board's determination as to reasonableness set forth in the regulations. We also reject Stanford Vina's assertion the Board was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before making this reasonableness determination. Contrary to Stanford Vina's arguments in this appeal, neither the due process guarantees of the federal and California Constitutions, nor article X, section 2 of the California Constitution¹ requires such a hearing prior to adoption of a regulation governing reasonable water use.

The Board's issuance of the challenged curtailment orders, a quasi-adjudicative act, is reviewable by administrative mandamus. However, as we explain, because Stanford Vina possessed no fundamental vested right to an unreasonable use of water from Deer Creek, our function is simply to determine whether the record is free from legal error and whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. As for the latter determination, the evidence is more than sufficient to support the Board's findings. As for the former, we reject Stanford Vina's assertion that the curtailment of water in this case amounted to a "taking" of Stanford Vina's property rights requiring just compensation. Finally, we are also unpersuaded by each of the remaining arguments raised by Stanford Vina and the various amicus parties who submitted briefs on the company's behalf.²

BACKGROUND

The Board's Administrative Authority

We begin with a brief overview of the Board's administrative authority in order to place the facts of this case in their proper context.

"The Board was created as the State Water Commission in 1913 to administer the appropriation of water for beneficial purposes. As originally created, the Board had the ‘limited role’ of granting use rights to water that was not being applied to beneficial purposes and was not otherwise appropriated. [Citation.] ‘[T]he function of the [Board] was restricted to determining if unappropriated water was available; if it was, and no competing appropriator submitted a claim, the grant of an appropriation was a ministerial act.’ [Citation.] The enactment of Article X, Section 2, [of the California constitution] however, ‘radically altered water law in California and led to an expansion of the powers of the board.’ [Citation.]" ( Light v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1481, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ( Light ).)

As we explain more fully later in this opinion, this constitutional provision limits the "right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course" in California "to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water." ( Art. X, § 2.)

Following the enactment of this constitutional provision, "[t]hrough subsequent legislation and judicial decisions, ‘the function of the [Board] has steadily evolved from the narrow role of deciding priorities between competing appropriators to the charge of comprehensive planning and allocation of waters.’ [Citation.]" ( Light, supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1481, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 200.) The Board's enabling statute "grants it the power to ‘exercise the adjudicatory and regulatory functions of the state in the field of water resources.’ [Citation.] In that role, the Board is granted ‘any powers ... that may be necessary or convenient for the exercise of its duties authorized by law’ [citation], including the power to ‘make such reasonable rules and regulations as it may from time to time deem advisable....’ [Citation.] Among its other functions, ‘the ... board shall take all appropriate proceedings or actions before executive, legislative, or judicial agencies to prevent waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water in this state.’ [Citation.]" ( Light, supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1481-1482, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ; Wat. Code, §§ 174, 186, 275, 1058.)³

Deer Creek Watershed

Deer Creek is a tributary of the Sacramento River originating near the summit of Butt Mountain in the Lassen National Forest. The creek runs generally in a southwesterly direction for about 60 miles, traversing dense forest before descending through a steep rock canyon into the Sacramento Valley, crossing the valley floor, and finally entering the Sacramento River near the town of Vina.

Two irrigation companies, Stanford Vina and Deer Creek Irrigation District, operate diversion dams and ditches for agricultural use between the canyon mouth and the Sacramento River. By virtue of a judicial decree, originally entered in 1923 and amended in 1926, Stanford Vina is entitled to use roughly 66 percent of the flow of Deer Creek.

Two species of anadromous fish, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, make their way from the ocean to Deer Creek each year to spawn. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon enter Deer Creek from late-February through early-July and spend the summer in pools in the upper watershed before spawning in late-September. Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon, as their name suggests, make their run during the fall, but do not travel into the upper watershed, instead spawning in the lower portions of the creek. Finally, California Central Valley steelhead trout also migrate upstream during the fall, but travel much farther up the creek and spawn in its upper reaches during the winter months.⁴

The spring-run salmon and steelhead trout noted above are listed as threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act ( Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq. ) and the federal Endangered Species Act ( 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. ). As the trial court noted in its statement of decision, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (federal fisheries services), "have been studying the conditions in California waterways," including Deer Creek, "and working to protect and restore anadromous (salmon and steelhead) fish populations" for many years. A 1993 report prepared by DFW estimated Deer Creek "could support sustainable populations of 4,000 spring-run and 6,500 fall-run ... salmon" and "identified ‘inadequate flow’ for upstream passage as the ‘most significant problem’ " preventing those numbers from being attained. Indeed, "in the decade prior to the report, it was estimated that only about 550 spring-run and 1,000 fall-run salmon annually spawned in the creek." The report further "stated that ‘[f]lows necessary to provide unimpaired migration for adult salmon and steelhead are unknown but have been estimated to be approximately 50 cfs [cubic feet per second]."

A 2009 watershed profile concluded Deer Creek has "high potential" for supporting viable populations of both spring-run salmon and steelhead trout because "[h]abitat used for holding and spawning is located at high elevations and habitat is considered to be high quality." However, because of the water diversion structures operated by Stanford Vina and Deer Creek Irrigation District in the valley section of the creek, "[d]uring low flow periods,...