Ninth Circuit Denies California Water Rights Curtailment Orders Due Process

• Three companies are challenging California's ability to curtail their water usage without due process hearings.
• The case focuses on water rights held in Mill and Deer creeks in Tehama County, which allow for diversion of water for approximately 11,000 acres of land.
• The companies argue that the state's characterization of an adjudicatory action as legislative has denied them constitutional rights.
• If successful, the appeal could establish a precedent challenging the state's ability to issue curtailment orders without due process hearings.

This is not the first time the companies have faced this issue; they have previously lost a case in federal court and had their appeal rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A recent Ninth Circuit case has highlighted the contentious issue of water rights in California, with three companies challenging the state's ability to curtail their water usage without due process hearings. The companies, Los Molinos Mutual Water Company, Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Company, and Peyton Pacific Properties, argue that the State Water Resources Control Board's characterization of an adjudicatory action as legislative has denied them constitutional rights. This is not the first time the companies have faced this issue; they have previously lost a case in federal court and had their appeal rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The current case focuses on water rights held in Mill and Deer creeks in Tehama County, which allow the companies to divert water for approximately 11,000 acres of land with orchards, pasture, and other uses.

The state's ability to issue curtailment orders without due process hearings has been a long-standing concern for water rights holders in California. The companies' attorney, Jackson Minasian, argues that the state's characterization of an adjudicatory action as legislative enables it to take property from small groups without due process or paying for it. This raises questions about the balance between protecting fish and other aquatic species and the constitutional rights of water users. In court documents, Minasian has proposed restrictions on the state's ability to frame an action as 'quasi-legislative,' which would provide greater protections for water rights holders.

The outcome of this case has significant implications for water rights holders in California. If the companies succeed in their appeal, it could establish a precedent that challenges the state's ability to issue curtailment orders without due process hearings. This would provide greater protections for water users and potentially lead to compensation for takings of their water rights. However, if the state prevails, it could continue to wield significant power over water usage in California, raising concerns about the balance between environmental protection and property rights.

Lawyers advising clients with water rights in California should be aware that the state's ability to issue curtailment orders without due process hearings may be subject to challenge, and clients may be entitled to compensation for takings of their water rights.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News