California Court Bolsters U.S. Water Rights in State

In a far-reaching ruling, the state Supreme Court on Thursday gave the federal government new rights to the use of water on the millions of acres of land it owns in California. The court, in a unanimous decision, held that the government has the same “riparian” rights to streams on its forest, park and other lands that other property owners have held for more than a century under state law.

But the justices, deciding a dispute between federal and state officials that arose in Lassen County, also said that state water authorities retain the power to subordinate any new federal claims to the needs of current water users in the state.

The court, in a 40-page opinion by Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, acknowledged that the issues in the case were “novel and potentially significant.” Of the 100 million acres that comprise California, the federal government owns 45%. More than half of the federal land is in the national forests and parks that primarily will be affected by the ruling.

While the court sought to minimize the disruptive impact of its decision, attorneys for state and local water agencies expressed serious concern with its potential long-term consequences. They said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Roderick E. Walston said the decision could have a “destabilizing” impact on long-established water law and ultimately may “work to the detriment” of agricultural and domestic water users in Central and Southern California.

“Depending on how the federal government is able to assert its rights, potentially the amount of water that may be involved could be astronomical,” said Walston, who represented the state Water Resources Control Board in the case.

Similar questions were raised by Edward J. Tiedemann of Sacramento, an attorney for the Assn. of California Water Agencies, a group of public water agencies that includes the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

“Many areas in the state depend on water supplies that, should the federal government step in and claim rights to, could be adversely affected,” Tiedemann said.

On the other side, however, attorneys for the government and an environmental group that supported the government in the case discounted the likelihood of serious detriment to state and local water users.

‘Nothing to Worry About’

“We’re not claiming any rights that anyone else in California doesn’t already have,” said Robert L. Klarquist, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington. “Anyone who has been exercising water rights before us has nothing to worry about.”

Laurens H. Silver of the Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund praised the ruling, saying that it would aid environmental-protection efforts on federal lands in the state. “This gives the federal government another tool to obtain water for wildlife and fishery purposes,” he said.

Lawyers on both sides agreed that it may require years of further litigation to determine the final results of the court’s ruling that the government’s “riparian” rights--its rights to the reasonable and beneficial use of water bordering or on its land--are equal to those of any other landowner.

The case leading to Thursday’s decision arose in 1979 when the state water board was asked to decide water rights to the Hallet Creek Stream System in Lassen County.

Board Defines Rights

With various claimants involved, the board held that the federal government had the right under federal law to 95,000 gallons annually for firefighting and road watering in Plumas National Forest.

But the board turned down a separate federal claim, made for the first time, to riparian rights under state law to about 100,000 gallons a year to protect wildlife in the area.

The federal government, joined by the Sierra Club, took the issue to Lassen Superior Judge Joseph B. Harvey, who ruled that the government was entitled to the same riparian rights as any other property owner. A state Court of Appeal ruled, however, that while the government could claim that right, it was automatically inferior to any other property owner’s claim.

The justices, reviewing the case on appeal, rejected the state’s contention that the federal government held no such riparian rights under state law. The government, they said, does have such a right and it is equal to that of any other property owner whose land borders or includes a watercourse.

Fears Called ‘Unfounded’

But Kaufman, writing the court’s opinion, went on to say that fears that such a ruling would disrupt rights of other water-users throughout the state and impair the board’s planning functions are “unfounded.”

Previously unexercised riparian rights by the federal government “lose (their) priority with respect to all rights currently being exercised,” Kaufman said.

The water board may decide to give newly asserted rights “lower priority” and “order such rights subordinated to appropriative rights currently being exercised,” he said.