El Dorado Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board

142 Cal. App. 4th 937 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

El Dorado Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board

California Court of Appeal
142 Cal. App. 4th 937 (2006)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

In 1927, California applied to appropriate water from a river near Sacramento in the northern part of the state. Over 75 years later, the State Water Resources Control Board (the board) (defendant) assigned the application to the El Dorado Irrigation District and El Dorado Water Agency (jointly El Dorado) (plaintiff), giving El Dorado a right senior to rights obtained after 1927. The permit included a standard term curtailing diversions when federal or state agencies released water from two pumping projects to satisfy water-quality standards in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Because California’s water resources lie mainly north of Sacramento while most demand originates in the south, state and federal agencies constructed two projects to pump massive amounts of water from the delta to southern regions. An “area of origin” statute protected the watershed that supplied the water by protecting rights to instream flows there. After the board set new water-quality standards in the 1970s, the pumping projects needed to release stored water or curtail diversions as necessary to maintain minimum instream flows in the delta. Agencies opposed most applications for water rights in the delta watershed because new diversions would require releasing more stored water to meet the water-quality objectives, instead of new appropriators sharing those responsibilities. As an interim solution, the board adopted standard permit language curtailing diversions when the projects released water. El Dorado brought an administrative action arguing that including the standard language in its permit, but not those of junior appropriators, violated California’s priority rule. The trial court directed the board to take out the standard term. The board, a water district, and public agencies with rights to water from the pumping projects appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Robie, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership