Case Law
Ninth Circuit Denies California Water Rights Curtailment Orders Due Process
California companies, Los Molinos Mutual Water Company, Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Company, and Peyton Pacific Properties, argued before a Ninth Circuit panel that the state wrongly curtailed their water rights and denied them a due process hearing and compensation. The appeal focuses on water rights held in Mill and Deer creeks in Tehama County, which allow the companies to divert water for some 11,000 acres of land with orchards, pasture, and other uses.
The legal significance of this case lies in its potential impact on the balance between private property rights and state regulation. The companies' argument that the State Water Resources Control Board's characterization of an adjudicatory action as legislative denied them due process and constitutional rights is a critical issue for practitioners to monitor. If successful, the appeal could establish new precedents for water rights cases in California.
The relevant statutes and regulations involved include the California Constitution, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law, and the State Water Resources Control Board's authority to regulate water rights. The court hierarchy is also relevant, as the Ninth Circuit panel will review the lower court's decision and potentially set new precedents for future cases.
The key parties involved are the companies, Los Molinos Mutual Water Company, Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Company, and Peyton Pacific Properties, which are seeking due process and compensation for the taking of their water rights. The State Water Resources Control Board is also a critical party, as its characterization of an adjudicatory action as legislative is at the heart of the companies' appeal.
Practitioners should monitor this case closely, as it has significant implications for the balance between private property rights and state regulation in California. Attorneys representing clients with water rights interests should be aware of the potential impact on their cases and consider filing similar appeals if necessary.