Cent. Delta Water Agency v. State Water Res. Control Bd. - 124 Cal. App. 4th 245, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 898 (2004)

Rule:

The Water Code governs the exclusive means by which a right to appropriate water subject to appropriation may be acquired. It requires that the applicant set forth and the State Water Resources Control Board determine the beneficial purpose, place of use, amount of use and method of use to which the appropriated water will be put. The application must contain inter alia the nature and amount of the proposed use, the place where it is intended to use the water, Cal. Water Code § 1260 and, with respect to the storage of water in a reservoir, the use to be made of the impounded waters, Cal. Water Code § 1266. The application must set forth information appropriate to the use specified. It must contain maps, drawings and other data required by the Board. The map must show the place of use, and any other features necessary for ready identification and understanding of the project. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 715.

Facts:

Respondent, the State Water Resources Control Board, issued permits for the diversion of water into reservoirs, which were to be constructed on two islands, without requiring the real party in interest, the permittee, to specify the actual uses, amounts, and places of use of the impounded water. Because of the unknowns, the permits defined beneficial use only by general categories and did not evaluate the environmental consequences. Appellants, a water district, several reclamation districts, owners of islands adjacent to the reservoir islands, a county and a county flood control district, challenged the Board's decision and argued that the Board violated the Water Code. 

Issue:

Did the respondent Board violate the Water Code, thereby necessitating the setting aside of the permits? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On review, the court ordered that the permits be set aside. The court agreed with the challengers that the Board violated the Water Code, which required that the permit decision track the matters required in the application, including the place that the water would be used, the use of the impounded water, and that the use be beneficial. A statement of alternative, potential beneficial uses failed to meet these requirements, and the authority to determine those matters was not delegable. Further, by failing to evaluate the environmental impacts of the delivery of water to actual purchasers, the Board violated its duty under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq., to evaluate the impacts of the project and all of its components.