State’s Power on Control of Water Is Ruled Valid

The California Supreme Court on Thursday let stand a lower-court ruling that gave sweeping power to state officials to assure high water quality in Northern California, even if it means exporting less water to the south at a higher cost.

The decision, issued last May by the state Court of Appeal here, also held that state authorities are empowered to reduce the amount of water the federal government diverts from the north to serve agricultural customers in the south.

The high court’s action came in a brief order declining to review the appellate court ruling. None of the seven members of the court dissented from the denial of review.

Thursday’s action was hailed by a state water official who said the appeal court decision had provided a “workable blueprint” for balancing competing interests and meeting long-range water needs throughout California in the coming decade.

“The state will have ample authority to protect environmental and other needs of Northern California if required,” said Robert W. James, chief counsel for the state Department of Water Resources. “But the opinion of the court also says we have to balance the needs of one area against that of another and of one use against another. . . . This is going to be a long and difficult process.”

Some Disappointment

Victor E. Gleason, deputy general counsel for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, expressed some disappointment that the high court had refused to review the case.

The MWD and other districts in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California that rely on northern water for agricultural, industrial and domestic uses had been concerned about the vast discretion the appellate court gave to the state Water Resources Control Board and the ultimate responsibility for potential costs of improving water quality in the north, he said.

“But the appeals court said that any limitations on our water rights have to be reasonable and in the public interest--and it requires the board to consider our situation in Southern California,” Gleason added. “On the whole, the emphasis was on balancing interests . . . and we think that will have a constructive impact.”

It appears unlikely that the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice, in a brief filed with the state Supreme Court, said that while the federal government believed that the state board lacked authority to modify water permits issued by federal authorities, the appellate decision now should be let stand pending further state proceedings on development of a long-range plan for water usage in California.

In its massive, 103-page opinion, the appeal court broadly upheld the board’s power to place restrictions on the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project to protect the water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay.

Together those two systems supply more than half of the water consumed in Central and Southern California. But environmentalists and Northern California officials have long been concerned that as diversions were made to serve the south, less fresh water flowed into the delta. As a result, salinity increased and fish and wildlife were damaged.

The appellate court said the board not only had power to protect farmers, industries and municipalities in the delta, but also had “the duty to provide water-quality protection to the fish and wildlife that make up the delicate ecosystem within the delta.”

The court said also that the board may require that the quality of the water in the delta be “enhanced” to make up for the adverse impact of the diversion of fresh water. It was unclear whether costs for such improvements--if ordered by the board--were to be borne by water project contractors or the state General Fund.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought against the board that challenged a plan the board adopted in 1978 to control salt content and protect fish and wildlife in the delta. The appeal court concluded that the board had not adequately weighed the environmental concerns for the delta--and must do so when it resumes its long-range planning process next year.

In other actions Thursday, the state Supreme Court:

- Agreed to decide whether a homeowner with standard insurance coverage can collect from his insurer for damage caused by landslides, floods, earthquakes or other natural disasters. A $47,000 award for property damage from a landslide obtained by a Marin County couple was overturned by a state appellate court, which said that homeowners without special coverage for disasters must show that defective construction would have caused the damage even if the disaster had not occurred.

- Announced it would review a state appellate court decision that made it more difficult for victims of the drug DES to win damages from manufacturers of the product. The appellate court, in a case involving about 70 DES lawsuits pending in San Francisco, said the victims must prove that the manufacturers either knew or should have known that the drug was carcinogenic and could cause birth defects.