In re Waters of Long Valley Creek Stream System
California Supreme Court
599 P.2d 656, 25 Cal. 3d 339, 158 Cal. Rptr. 350 (1979)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
California’s State Water Resources Control Board (the board) (defendant) had statutory authority to conduct administrative hearings to define prospective water rights, including riparian water rights within the state. After decades of conflict among the various claimed water-right holders, a group of water-right holders petitioned the board to adjudicate water rights for the Long Valley Creek Stream System in Northern California. The board granted the petition, published a notice of proceedings, obtained notices from water-right holders of their claims, investigated, and prepared a detailed report of the board’s findings. The claimants filed 234 proofs of claim, of which 42 were contested. The board then entered its order determining the stream-system water rights. One of the affected water-right claimants, Donald Ramelli (plaintiff), filed an exception with the superior court. Ramelli contended that he and his predecessors had irrigated 89 acres for decades but also claimed riparian rights for an additional 2,884 acres, which he had not yet used. The board’s order recognized the 89-acre right but determined that Ramelli’s future riparian rights for the additional acres were extinguished. The superior court rejected Ramelli’s exception and entered a decree consistent with the board’s order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
Dissent (Manuel, J.)
What to do next…
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.