National Audubon Society et al. (Petitioner), v. The Superior Court of Alpine County (Respondent) Country/Territory United States of America Type of court National - higher court Date Apr 14, 1983 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Supreme Court of California Seat of court San Francisco Judge BroussardKausRichardson Reference number 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983) Language English Subject Water, Legal questions Keyword Inland waters Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Freshwater resources management Water abstraction Water supply Public water Recreational water use Navigation Water rights Abstract Mono Lake sits at the base of the Sierra Nevada. Most of the water supply of the lake comes from five freshwater streams. In 1940, the Division of Water Resources granted the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (DWP) a permit to divert about half of the flow of the freshwater streams into an aqueduct in order to secure the water supply for the city of Los Angeles. As a result of these diversions, the surface area of the lake had diminished by one-third. Former islands in the lake became peninsulas and gulls living on these islands became exposed to predators. The Plaintiffs field suit to enjoin the DWP diversions on the theory that the shores, bed and waters of Mono Lake were protected by a public trust. The Supreme Court analyzed the purpose and scope of the public trust, the duties and powers of the state as trustee and the California Water Rights System. It then addressed the question of the relationship between the public trust doctrine and the California Water Rights System. It inquired whether the public trust doctrine was subsumed in the California Water Rights System or functioned independently of that system. In the view of the court, the core of the public trust doctrine was the state’s authority as sovereign to exercise a continuous supervision and control over the navigable waters of the state. This authority applied to the waters of Mono Lake. The doctrine could not, however, apply without modification to flowing waters. The streams diverted by DWP were not themselves navigable. The court therefore had to address the question whether the public trust limited conduct affecting non-navigable tributaries to navigable waterways. It was of the view that if the public trust doctrine applied to constrain fills which destroyed navigation and other public trust uses in navigable waters, it should equally apply to constrain the extraction of water that destroyed navigation and other public interests. Both actions resulted in the same damage to the public interest. It concluded that the doctrine protected navigable waters from harm caused by diversion of non-navigable tributaries. However, the court emphasized that the prosperity of the state required the diversion of great quantities of water from its stream for purposes unconnected to any navigation, commerce, fishing, recreation, or ecological use relating to the source stream. The state had to have the power to grant non-vested usufructuary rights to appropriate water even if diversions harmed public trust uses. Approval of such diversion without considering public trust values, however, could result in needless destruction of those values. Accordingly, before state courts and agencies approved water diversions they had to consider the effect of such diversions upon interests protected by the public trust, and attempt, so far as feasible, to avoid any harm to those interest. Finally, the Court analyzed the question whether the plaintiff had to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Water Board prior to filing suit in superior court. The court held that the superior court had concurrent original jurisdiction with the Water Board in suits to determine water rights and the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies. Full text COU-143793E.pdf References Cited by Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors Jurisprudence | National - higher court | India | Feb 23, 2006 Keyword: Urban land, Sustainable development, Public trust doctrine, Freshwater resources management Source: UNEP, InforMEA