Legal Alerts

Legal Alerts

33 results (7 pages) matching the query "Water Law"
Showing Prev 1 of 7 Next Pages
01/09/2012 Frost Protection Water Use in Russian River Watershed, Even by Groundwater Pumpers, Now Conditional on SWRCB Approval of a Water Demand Management Program

On December 29, 2011, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the addition of a Frost Control Regulation (“Regulation”), effective immediately, requiring that diversion of water from the Russian River stream system for the purposes of frost protection between March 15 and May 15, is conditional on prior approval by the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") of a detailed Water Demand Management Program ("WDMP"). Only diversions upstream of Warm Springs Dam in Sonoma County or Coyote Dam in Mendocino County are exempt from the WDMP requirements. The Regulation is available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/russian_river_frost/docs/approved_reg.pdf

10/04/2011 Court Invalidates Urban Development Project EIR For Failing To Disclose And Address Water Supply Uncertainties

Overview

In Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. et al. v. County of Madera, (--- Cal.App.4th ---, Fifth Dist., September 13, 2011) (Madera), the Fifth District Court of Appeals (Court) provided guidance on completing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for a major urban development project. The opinion addresses: disclosure of uncertainties regarding water supply; limits on agency discretion in establishing an environmental baseline for analyzing impacts; standards for creating, augmenting and challenging the administrative record; and findings for mitigation of impacts to archeological resources.

09/25/2011 Water District's New Rate Structure Failed To Comply With Requirements Of Proposition 218

In City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 2 Dist., August 9, 2011), a court of appeal considered whether the new water rate structure of a water district met the constitutional requirements of Proposition 218. The court held the rate structure did not meet Proposition 218’s proportionality requirement because the district’s tier structure establishes that certain customers are charged disproportionate rates without any showing by the district that there is a disparity in the cost of providing water to the customers at different tiers within the structure.
08/03/2011 District Court Rejects Claims to Area of Origin Priority by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority

Overview

Water users in the Sacramento Valley have no preferential right to delivery of Central Valley Project ("CVP") water under the state's so-called "area of origin" laws, according to the U.S. District Court in Fresno. The "area of origin" laws allow water users within an area where water originates to apply for new diversions, and to obtain priority for such diversions ahead of already existing diversions for export uses by the CVP and the State Water Project. However, this protection does not grant CVP contractors in the area of origin a right to a preferential allocation of water diverted and stored by the CVP. Instead, the Court ruled, the only preference granted by the area of origin laws applies when users in the area of origin seek a separate water right permit from the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB").
02/07/2011 Landowners Can Sue For Loss Of Property Value Due To Listing Of Stream As "Impaired Water Body" Under Clean Water Act

A decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a procedural ruling that prevented landowners from suing the United States for diminution of property value resulting from the listing of a stream as an impaired waterbody under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Barnum Timber Co. v. U.S. EPA, (Docket No. 08-17715, February 3, 2011).
33 results (7 pages) matching the query "Water Law"
Showing Prev 1 of 7 Next Pages