Justices Retain Federal Shield for Five Scenic Rivers in State

The Supreme Court, rejecting pleas from a coalition of California water agencies and agricultural groups, Monday let stand a ruling allowing major parts of five undeveloped northern rivers in the state to remain protected under federal wild and scenic rivers law.

The justices, in a brief order, refused to disturb a decision issued in May by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco approving inclusion of 1,250 miles of the Eel, Trinity, American, Klamath and Smith rivers in the federal system and thus protecting them from commercial development.

Former Interior Secretary Cecil D. Andrus, acting at the request of former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., had designated the rivers as part of the national system in the final hours of the Carter Administration in January, 1981.

Andrus’ action was challenged by a group of Northern California counties, farm and business groups and water agencies. A federal district judge set aside the designation on the ground it failed to allow sufficient time for public comment. But the appeals court reversed, finding that any rule violations were “insignificant” and “trivial.”

The Assn. of California Water Agencies and other foes of inclusion took the case to the Supreme Court (Assn. of California Water Agencies vs. U.S., 84-544), contending that the action was taken improperly and would effectively shift more than 30% of California’s natural water supply to federal control. The action would severely hamper future water projects that could serve California’s agricultural, hydroelectric and other economic needs, they said.

The justices’ order denying review, issued without comment, drew praise from the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the groups in the case supporting inclusion of the rivers in the federal system. “We’re very happy,” said John Krautkraemer, an attorney for the fund. “This means that the rivers are protected by law from now on.”

But Bill DuBois, director of natural resources for the California Farm Bureau Federation, expressed dismay with the court’s position and predicted that the state would suffer in the long term unless Congress acts to remove the rivers from the federal system.

DuBois said that while there are no immediate plans to seek any of the protected waters for water projects, the situation could change. “There will come a time, perhaps 20 years from now, when water from the north coast will very likely be needed,” he said.

In another California case, the justices refused an opportunity to decide whether the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials applies also to preliminary hearings. In a brief order, the court declined to hear an appeal by the Sacramento Bee newspaper contending that a reporter and the rest of the public were improperly excluded from such a hearing last year for Ronny William Monzingo, then awaiting retrial for the alleged rape and strangulation death of his stepmother.

Monzingo’s closed hearing, ordered to avoid prejudicial publicity, involved an unrelated assault charge that was dismissed before trial. The murder case remains pending. Both a state Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court refused to overturn the closure of the hearing.

In past decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is a right for the public to attend trials, including jury selection, unless a trial judge finds that closure is the only way to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Attorneys for the Bee pointed out that because more than 90% of all prosecutions never reach the trial stage--and are settled instead through negotiated guilty pleas or dismissals--a preliminary hearing is often the only chance for the public to view a criminal proceeding (Sacramento Bee vs. Municipal Court of Sacramento, 84-288).