National Audubon Society v. Superior Court

What is National Audubon Society v. Superior Court known for?


including public

of water, including public trust uses, must conform to the standard of reasonable use.”’’ In concluding, the court stated that the water rights held by Los Angeles were granted in absence of consideration of the effects of the diversions on the public trust resources of the Mono Basin and that the allocation of water from the basin streams should be reconsidered. The state has a ''"duty"'' to protect the public's ''"common heritage


legal

web title Appendix R. Legal History of the Mono Lake Controversy url http: www.monobasinresearch.org images mbeir dappendix app-r-text.pdf work Mono Basin EIR 1993 publisher Mono Basin Research.org accessdate 2011-04-22 Any waters in excess of the "reasonable and beneficial uses" are considered surplus waters available for use by others, as stipulated under the appropriative water rights administered by California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ref

Audubon Society v. Los Angeles. Superior Court of Alpine County No. 6429'''''. The case was transferred to Alpine (Alpine County, California) Superior Court (Superior Courts of California); ''DWP'' filed a cross-complaint seeking adjudication of Basin water

;The majority's suggestion that various statutory provisions contemplate the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction in cases of this kind is unconvincing."'' In support of this, Richardson cited the Water Code (§§ 2000, 2001, 2075) as well as '' Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist'' (1980) and (1977). Legal and Policy Implications The decision of the court expanded the reach of the public trust


water quot

Department of Water and Power nativename nativename_a nativename_r logo LA DWP Logo.jpg logo_width 200px logo_caption seal seal_width seal_caption picture picture_width picture_caption formed Water: 1902 Electric: 1916 preceding1 Los Angeles City Water Company preceding2 dissolved superseding jurisdiction headquarters John

Ferraro John Ferraro Building , Los Angeles, California latd latm lats latNS longd longm longs longEW region_code employees 8,611 employees budget $4.19 billion (water and electric) Electric: $3.19 billion Water: $1 billion minister1_name minister1_pfo minister2_name minister2_pfo chief1_name Austin Beutner chief1_position

General Manager (Interim) chief2_name chief2_position agency_type Water Infrastructure parent_agency child1_agency child2_agency keydocument1 website footnotes thumb Landsat image of Mono Lake (File:Wfm mono lake landsat.jpg) thumb Lakeside of Mono Lake 1999 (File:Lakeside of Mono Lake.jpg) The case of '''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court''' (Supreme Court of California, 1983) was a key case


public interest

. 982 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) Ill. Cent. R. R., 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and preservation of a public interest (such as recreation, swimming, access, and sport fishing). Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 (1971) In ''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,'' it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water level declines as a result of water diversions by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) (DWP).


water including

of water, including public trust uses, must conform to the standard of reasonable use.”’’ In concluding, the court stated that the water rights held by Los Angeles were granted in absence of consideration of the effects of the diversions on the public trust resources of the Mono Basin and that the allocation of water from the basin streams should be reconsidered. The state has a ''"duty"'' to protect the public's ''"common heritage


modern public

'' (1983) is that traditional use of the public trust doctrine to ensure that valuable public resources are not lost to the public through diversion to public control has been altered to encompass an all-embracing environmental protection mechanism. In cases in which the traditional doctrine evolved to protect common rights of access for commercial purposes, the modern public trust doctrine proclaims conservationist principles. ref name "Schyff" >


growing public

by birds. Quoting ''Marks v. Whitney'', the court said, “There is a growing public recognition that one of the most important public uses of the tidelands and use encompassed within the tidelands trust is the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” As a result, Mono Lake is a navigable water, and the beds, shores, and waters of the lake are protected by the public trust. 7 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 79 1987-1988 During the trial the court brought up two cases that dealt with non-navigable waterways. In 1884, the court considered impairment of navigability in the American and Sacramento rivers due to mining on their non-navigable tributaries. Gold Run Ditching and Mining Company used water cannons to wash gold bearing gravel from the hillsides. As a result, 600,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel went into the American River and washed downstream into the beds of the both the American and Sacramento (Sacramento River) rivers. The court said “The State holds the absolute right to all navigable waters and the soils under them. The soil she holds as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people; and she may, by her legislature, grant it to an individual; but she cannot grant the rights of the people to the use of the navigable waters flowing over it…” In the second case, in 1901, the defendant in ''People v. Russ'' had built dams on sloughs, which flowed from the Salt River. The dams had been built to prevent water from flowing on to the defendant’s land, but the state said they were a public nuisance. In the National Audubon case, ''DWP'' argued that when the Water Board approved a permit, the water right became a vested right. The California Supreme Court held that the public trust is “an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust.” 7 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 67 1987-1988 The second issue in this case was whether plaintiffs must exhaust their remedies before the Water Board prior to bringing action in court. The California Supreme Court determined that remedy can be pursued from the Water Board by challenging the unreasonable or unbeneficial use of appropriated water or by bringing an independent public trust claim. Therefore, the plaintiffs could claim that ''DWP’s'' use of the water was unreasonable. Plaintiffs also could bring the public trust claim pursuant to section 2501 of the Water Code, which said, “The board may determine, in the proceedings provided for in this chapter, all rights to water of a stream system whether based upon appropriation, riparian right, or other basis of right.” Section 2501 refers to water rights as bringing the proceedings before the Water Board. Decision The California Supreme Court entered its decision in 1983 with the majority opinion written by Justice Broussard (Allen Broussard) with Justices Bird (Rose Bird), Mosk (Stanley Mosk), Kaus (Otto Kaus) and Reynoso (Cruz Reynoso), concurring. A separate concurring opinion by was entered by Kaus. Justice Richardson issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. While the public trust doctrine protects navigable waterways like Mono Lake, the question remained whether diversions of non-navigable waters like the Mono Lake tributaries might also fall under the doctrine's scope. The majority concluded that when diversions of non-navigable tributaries impair the public interest in navigable waterways (Navigability), the scope of the public trust doctrine is sufficiently broad to proscribe such actions.


natural

was whether appropriative water rights (granted in the past) must consider the public trust doctrine, requiring protection of natural resources by the state. More specifically, the issue being addressed by the court was whether Mono Lake was subject to a public trust, which would invalidate Los Angeles’ use

of the streams feeding the lake. The California Supreme Court held that the state, under the public trust

to the people and is to be held in a ''trust'' by the government. The public trust doctrine holds that our water, fish, and wildlife are shared resources to be held


important public

by birds. Quoting ''Marks v. Whitney'', the court said, “There is a growing public recognition that one of the most important public uses of the tidelands and use encompassed within the tidelands trust is the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” As a result, Mono Lake is a navigable water, and the beds, shores, and waters of the lake are protected by the public trust. 7 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 79 1987-1988 During the trial the court brought up two cases that dealt with non-navigable waterways. In 1884, the court considered impairment of navigability in the American and Sacramento rivers due to mining on their non-navigable tributaries. Gold Run Ditching and Mining Company used water cannons to wash gold bearing gravel from the hillsides. As a result, 600,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel went into the American River and washed downstream into the beds of the both the American and Sacramento (Sacramento River) rivers. The court said “The State holds the absolute right to all navigable waters and the soils under them. The soil she holds as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people; and she may, by her legislature, grant it to an individual; but she cannot grant the rights of the people to the use of the navigable waters flowing over it…” In the second case, in 1901, the defendant in ''People v. Russ'' had built dams on sloughs, which flowed from the Salt River. The dams had been built to prevent water from flowing on to the defendant’s land, but the state said they were a public nuisance. In the National Audubon case, ''DWP'' argued that when the Water Board approved a permit, the water right became a vested right. The California Supreme Court held that the public trust is “an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust.” 7 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 67 1987-1988 The second issue in this case was whether plaintiffs must exhaust their remedies before the Water Board prior to bringing action in court. The California Supreme Court determined that remedy can be pursued from the Water Board by challenging the unreasonable or unbeneficial use of appropriated water or by bringing an independent public trust claim. Therefore, the plaintiffs could claim that ''DWP’s'' use of the water was unreasonable. Plaintiffs also could bring the public trust claim pursuant to section 2501 of the Water Code, which said, “The board may determine, in the proceedings provided for in this chapter, all rights to water of a stream system whether based upon appropriation, riparian right, or other basis of right.” Section 2501 refers to water rights as bringing the proceedings before the Water Board. Decision The California Supreme Court entered its decision in 1983 with the majority opinion written by Justice Broussard (Allen Broussard) with Justices Bird (Rose Bird), Mosk (Stanley Mosk), Kaus (Otto Kaus) and Reynoso (Cruz Reynoso), concurring. A separate concurring opinion by was entered by Kaus. Justice Richardson issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. While the public trust doctrine protects navigable waterways like Mono Lake, the question remained whether diversions of non-navigable waters like the Mono Lake tributaries might also fall under the doctrine's scope. The majority concluded that when diversions of non-navigable tributaries impair the public interest in navigable waterways (Navigability), the scope of the public trust doctrine is sufficiently broad to proscribe such actions.


title national

of the streams feeding the lake. The California Supreme Court held that the state, under the public trust

challenge the ''DWP’s'' permits by asserting the public trust doctrine limits their permits and licenses, or argue that the water diversions are not “reasonable or beneficial,” as required under the California water rights system? And 2.) Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was pursued or is applicable in this context. This case eventually reached the Supreme Court of California, carrying this title: '''''National Audubon Society v. Superior

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court

agency_name Los Angeles Department of Water and Power nativename nativename_a nativename_r logo LA DWP Logo.jpg logo_width 200px logo_caption seal seal_width seal_caption picture picture_width picture_caption formed Water: 1902 Electric: 1916 preceding1 Los Angeles City Water Company preceding2 dissolved superseding jurisdiction headquarters John Ferraro Building (John Ferraro), Los Angeles, California latd latm lats latNS longd longm longs longEW region_code employees 8,611 employees budget $4.19 billion (water and electric) Electric: $3.19 billion Water: $1 billion minister1_name minister1_pfo minister2_name minister2_pfo chief1_name Austin Beutner chief1_position General Manager (Interim) chief2_name chief2_position agency_type Water Infrastructure parent_agency child1_agency child2_agency keydocument1 website footnotes thumb Landsat image of Mono Lake (File:Wfm mono lake landsat.jpg) thumb Lakeside of Mono Lake 1999 (File:Lakeside of Mono Lake.jpg)

The case of '''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court''' (Supreme Court of California, 1983) was a key case in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. In essence, the public trust doctrine establishes the role of the state as having trustee environmental duties owed to the public that are subsequently enforceable by the public. There is judicial recognition of this, dictating that certain rights of the public are key to individual common law rights (such as state recognition of the public right or trust for waterways and coastal zones). Judicial recognition of the public trust doctrine has been established for tidelands and non-navigable waterways, Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469 (1988) submerged land (such as lake beds) and the waters above them, New York v. DeLyser, 759 F. Supp. 982 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) Ill. Cent. R. R., 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and preservation of a public interest (such as recreation, swimming, access, and sport fishing). Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 (1971)

In ''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,'' it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water level declines as a result of water diversions by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) (DWP). The California Supreme Court held that the state, under the public trust doctrine, had '''continuing responsibility''' for the state's navigable waters and that the public trust doctrine, therefore, prevented any party from appropriating water in a manner that harmed the public trust interests. However, the court also recognized that LA depended on these diversions as a critical water source, and this in turn mitigated the rule of law as the court held that water transfers were permissible even though some damage to the environment would occur as long as this was kept to minimal harm to the extent feasible. This ruling established that the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights are ''"part of an integrated system of water law"'' and so both must be considered when determining appropriate use of water in California.

Search by keywords:


Copyright (C) 2015-2017 PlacesKnownFor.com
Last modified: Tue Oct 10 05:56:30 EDT 2017