Court Opinion

ID: 9545324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:10:15.616163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:33.072048
License: Public Domain

*345RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment, with some misgivings.
First, I fully agree with the majority’s disposition of plaintiffs’ cause of actibn to compel EBMUD to reclaim waste water to supplement existing supplies. As the majority holds, although that cause is not preempted by federal law, it is appropriate to require plaintiffs to seek relief from the State Water Resources Control Board before pursuing their judicial remedies.
I have considerably less confidence, however, in the majority’s holding that plaintiffs’ cause of action to invalidate EBMUD’s contract with the Bureau of Reclamation is preempted by the federal Reclamation Act. Were we considering this case afresh, without the benefit of the various preemption decisions of the United States Supreme Court discussed and relied on by the majority, we might well reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs have alleged that the construction of the Hood-Clay Connection, and the placement of the diversion point on the Folsom-South Canal above its intersection with the Hood-Clay Connection, will result in an unreasonable use or diversion of water from the lower American River, in violation of express constitutional and statutory provisions (Cal. Const., art. X, § 2; Wat. Code, § 100) and with veiy serious environmental consequences. Nothing in the federal act expressly calls for a preemption of such fundamental provisions of state law; indeed, as the majority acknowledges, the language of the act arguably would support a contrary holding.
Thus, were we writing upon a clean slate, we might reasonably determine that state laws regarding water use and diversion must control despite the fact that a federal project is involved. After all, the project at issue was intended to afford improved water distribution facilities for California users, and it se'ems somewhat anomalous to hold that such a local project is exempt from state laws aimed at promoting reasonable water use for California citizens.
Nevertheless, the majority’s analysis of the applicable decisions by the United States Supreme Court indicates that preemption will occur whenever application of state law could frustrate the operation of a federal project, or circumscribe the authority of federal officers responsible for administering the project. As the majority explains, plaintiffs’ suit herein seeks to rescind the federal contract and enjoin construction of the proposed facilities, thereby, arguably, frustrating or defeating a federal *346purpose. Under such an analysis of the preemption decisions plaintiffs’ action must be dismissed.
I note, however, that although the preemption decisions may be instructive, they are not directly on point—no decision of the United States Supreme Court has as yet adopted any ironclad, unequivocal rule which would invoke the preemption doctrine whenever operation of a federal project may be threatened by application of state law. Consequently, although I concur in the judgment herein, given the present uncertainties in the applicable decisions, I fully acknowledge that a definitive opinion on this difficult subject must come from the high court.