California Supreme Court: Hears Kern River Reasonable Water Use Arguments

• The California Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving conservation groups and the City of Bakersfield over water allocation for fish in the Kern River.
• The dispute centers on California Fish and Game Code Section 5937, which requires dam owners to allow sufficient water for fish, and the judicial duty to assess 'reasonable water use.'
• The case reached the Supreme Court after an appeals court reversed a lower court's decision that had blocked Bakersfield from reducing river flows.
• Arguments focused on whether judges must independently consider the 'reasonableness' of water use, even if not explicitly raised by parties, and the scope of Section 5937.
• The court's decision will significantly impact future environmental water flow litigation and the application of California's water rights reasonableness doctrine.

The court's eventual ruling on the judicial obligation to assess 'reasonable use' could fundamentally reshape environmental water flow litigation and compliance requirements across the state.

The California Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a pivotal case concerning the allocation of water in the Kern River, specifically addressing the long-standing dispute between conservation groups, led by Bring Back the Kern, and the City of Bakersfield, alongside other water agencies. At the heart of the legal battle is the interpretation and application of California Fish and Game Code Section 5937, which mandates that dam owners allow sufficient water to pass through to sustain fish in good condition. This environmental water flow litigation has reached the state's highest court following a complex procedural journey.

The case originated from an October 2023 lower court ruling that temporarily prevented Bakersfield from reducing water flows in the Kern River. However, an appeals court subsequently reversed this decision in April 2025, prompting Bring Back the Kern and its allies to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. The core question before the justices revolves around the judicial responsibility to assess the 'reasonable use' of water, a fundamental principle of California water rights reasonableness doctrine, even when parties involved may not explicitly raise the argument.

Central to the arguments presented was the concept of reasonable water use in California, a state where water scarcity is a persistent concern. Colin Pearce, representing the City of Bakersfield, contended that water, as a subject of litigation, is unique and inherently requires judges to evaluate the reasonableness of its use, irrespective of whether a party formally invokes that argument. Pearce asserted that all water uses must be reasonable, emphasizing the need for balance and suggesting that Bring Back the Kern bears the responsibility of detailing what constitutes a reasonable amount of water to achieve their goal of supporting fish.

Conversely, Kevin Bundy, counsel for Bring Back the Kern, argued that his client's appeal was narrowly focused on the preliminary injunction and the clear mandate of Code Section 5937, which he maintained has always considered allowing flows for fish as part of the statutory scheme. Bundy pushed back against the idea that it was his client's duty to disprove other water interests or for the court to independently delve into the broader question of reasonableness. Associate Justice Leondra Kruger directly questioned whether a judge is obligated to consider reasonableness if no party explicitly raises the issue, highlighting a key point of contention.

The proceedings also illuminated the diverse and often competing interests vying for Kern River water allocation. Ian Fein, representing the state attorney general and the Fish and Wildlife Department, urged the Supreme Court to grant a high level of deference to the Legislature's definition of 'reasonable use,' rather than substituting its own interpretation. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero acknowledged the critical importance of maintaining fish in good condition but also noted the existence of other significant issues that compete with this objective.

Brett Stroud, representing various water agencies affected by the case, argued that Bring Back the Kern's position—that Code Section 5937 dictates statewide water use—would be unconstitutional. Stroud emphasized that the core issue remains reasonableness, noting that the trial court had determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider this aspect, while the appeals court insisted that reasonableness must be evaluated. He requested that the justices remand the issue to the lower court for a proper consideration of reasonableness. In rebuttal, Bundy asked the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court's decision and affirm that keeping fish in good condition, as per Section 5937, inherently constitutes reasonable water use.

While the California Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the day of arguments, the outcome of this case holds significant implications for the future of California water rights, particularly for those involving environmental flows and the application of Fish and Game Code Section 5937. The court's eventual ruling on the judicial obligation to assess 'reasonable use' could fundamentally reshape environmental water flow litigation and compliance requirements across the state.

Lawyers advising clients on California water rights, especially those navigating the complexities of environmental protection and water allocation, should closely monitor this case. The Supreme Court's determination of how and when the reasonableness doctrine must be applied will undoubtedly influence litigation strategies and potentially alter the landscape for water users and conservation efforts throughout California.

Lawyers advising clients on California water rights, particularly those involving environmental flows or Fish and Game Code Section 5937, should monitor this case closely. The Supreme Court's decision on the judicial obligation to assess 'reasonable use' could significantly alter litigation strategies and compliance requirements for water allocation and environmental protection.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service