Turner, Tiffany

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 48 9-1-2000 San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Morro Bay, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Tiffany Turner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Tiffany Turner, Court Report, San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Morro Bay, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000), 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 218 (2000). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. WATER LAW REVIEWuser actually receives. A paper water right is so named because, ashere, when there is not enough water to fulfill the entitlement, theright exists only on paper. In addressing this problem, the courtfound the EIR did not view Article 18(b) as a feasible alternative andinstead summarily dismissed it as infeasible. The EIR failed tomeaningfully analyze the permanent proportionate decreaseprovisions of Article 18(b) to reflect SWP's actual yield as a projectalternative.On the whole, the court found the EIR's analysis defective becauseit did not sufficiently provide the public with a base line against whichto measure the project, the status quo, and the alternatives. Inreversing the trial court, the court held harmless error reviewinapplicable to a court evaluating the statutory mandates of CEQA.Thus, the trial court's conclusion that the EIR was sufficient eventhough the agency drafting it was not the proper lead agencyconstituted reversible error. The court also reversed the trial court'sdismissal for failure to serve indispensable parties because the reversevalidation proceeding was an in rem action whose only indispensableparty consisted of the public agency owning the res.Susan P. KlopmanSan Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Morro Bay, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (holding section 1810 of the California"Wheeling Statutes" did include as a transferor entitled to use a city'swater conveyance facility's unused capacity, a school districtpurchasing less expensive water from the county).The San Luis Unified School District ("School District") appealedthe trial court'sjudgment denying a writ of mandate against the City ofMorro Bay ("City"). The writ would compel the City to allow theSchool District to use the excess capacity of the City's waterconveyance facility to transfer water purchased by the School Districtfrom San Luis County ("County") to schools within the City. Section1810 of the California Water Code required public agencies to allowbona fide transferors to use excess unused capacity in their waterconveyance facility in return for fair compensation. The SchoolDistrict argued it was a "bona fide transferor" within the meaning ofsection 1810.The trial court ruled the School District was not included withinthe definition of a "transferor" because a "transferor" was limited tothose who contracted for the sale of water. The trial court agreed withthe City that the School District had a contract to purchase water, nota contract for the sale of water. Therefore, the School District was nota transferor entitled to use the City's water conveyance system.The court of appeals reversed. First, the court ruled the SchoolDistrict was a transferor within the statute. The court stated a contractVolume 4COURT REPORTSfor purchase only exists with a corresponding contract for sale fromthe County, and whether the transferee or transferor actually appliedfor the use of the conveyance system was not important.Second, the court of appeals rejected the City's argument that theconveyance facility contemplated in the statute included onlyaqueducts and canals, and not local distribution systems. The courtstated the legislature would have specifically excluded localdistribution systems from the statute if that was the legislature's intent.The court ruled the City had no duty to allow the School District to usethe City storage facility for any period longer than the incidental usetime necessary to convey the water.Third, the court of appeals rejected the City's argument that thestatute should not be enforced because the School District's use didnot promote the statute's conservation purpose. The court stated thestatute did not indicate conservation was the statute's only purpose.Therefore, the School District's purpose of reducing cost wasacceptable.Finally, the court of appeals rejected the City's argument thatallowing the School District's use of the water conveyance systemviolated section 1810(d) of the Water Code. Section 1810 did notallow use of the water conveyance facility if the use caused legal injuryto other legal users. The City argued the agreement violated thisprovision, because injury would occur to other legal users due to theincreases in the City's water prices if the School District did notpurchase its water from the City. The court rejected this argumentstating an increased water prices was not the type of injury thelegislature intended to prevent.The court remanded the case with the instruction that the trialcourt order the City to produce the information listed in section 1812,including the amount and availability of the conveyance facility'sunused capacity and the terms and conditions of the facility's use.Tiffany TurnerCOLORADOBd. of County Comnm'rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d325 (Colo. 2000) (holding that the Gunnison River, located in theAspinall Unit, did not contain sufficient water for Arapahoe County tomeet the "can and will" requirement of a conditional water rightdecree).The Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County("Arapahoe") applied for a decree for a conditional water right. TheDistrict Court, Water Division No. 4, denied Arapahoe's application,Issue 1

San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Morro Bay, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2670&context=wlr

San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Morro Bay, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver