In determining that the Public Trust Doctrine applies to the extraction of navigable waterways the Court relied heavily on National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419 (“Audubon”). Finding Audubon to be precedent, the Court found the extraction of groundwater was akin to the appropriation of water from tributaries of navigable waterways, as was at issue in Audubon in that:
·
the diversion of the water caused the level of
the lake to drop, thereby imperiling its scenic beauty and ecological value,
such as groundwater extraction can cause the level of the Scott River to drop
and cause the same harm;
·
the values underlying the Legislative mandate
regarding the water rights system at issue in Audubon (appropriative water rights) collided with the Public Trust
Doctrine, but both systems of legal thought could be implemented together, just
as SGMA can be implemented together with the Public Trust Doctrine;
·
whether or not groundwater is navigable is not
the issue; tributaries in Audubon
were not navigable water ways, the issue is whether the conduct at issue,
diversion or extraction, will adversely impact a public trust resource such as
a navigable waterway.
In determining that SGMA does not occupy the filed of groundwater
management such that the County and Board do not have fiduciary duties under
the Public Trust Doctrine with respect to the extraction of groundwater, the
Court, again relying heavily on Audubon, found:
·
just as there was no incongruity between the appropriative
water rights system and the Public Trust Doctrine in Audubon, there is no incongruity between SGMA and the Public Trust
Doctrine;
·
SGMA, like the appropriative water rights
system, can be harmonized with the Public Trust Doctrine.
Moreover, the Court found no evidence of legislative intent
that SGMA was to replace the Public Trust Doctrine. Instead the Court found
that the provisions of SGMA:
·
reflect a legislative desire not to interfere with existing law (such as the common law Public Trust Doctrine);
·
SGMA is not as comprehensive as the
appropriative water rights system in place, which Audubon found did not eradicate Public Trust Doctrine
considerations;
·
do not subject all groundwater basins to its
regulation, such as adjudicated basins;
·
many requirements of SGMA do not take effect for
several years.
Although the Court considers its decision narrow because it addresses a
navigable stream system which includes interconnected groundwater basins, the decision lays the foundation for additional litigation. A person who feels that a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency ("GSA") is not adequately taking the environment into account
in its Groundwater Sustainability Plans ("GSP") can rely on this case to initiate costly litigation and argue the groundwater extractions to be managed impact a
public trust resource: a bird sanctuary, wildlife preserve, or the surface levels of a navigable waterway; and attempt to have a Court order more stringent restrictions on groundwater extraction than would have otherwise been set forth in the GSP.
