Court Opinion

ID: 9547887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:53:51.314226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:11.535844
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.
I concur with parts 1 through 4 of the majority opinion and with its analysis of the relationship between the public trust doctrine and the water rights system in this state. I respectfully dissent, however, from part 5 of the opinion wherein the majority holds that the courts and the California Water Resources Board (Water Board) have concurrent jurisdiction in cases of this kind. In my view, there are several compelling reasons for holding that the Water Board has exclusive original jurisdiction over the present dispute, subject of course to judicial review of its decision.
As the majority recognizes, the matter of concurrent jurisdiction involves the related issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. It is well settled that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, that remedy must be pursued and exhausted before the courts will act. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715].) This doctrine applies to disputes regarding water appropriated pursuant to permits issued by the Water Board. (Temescal Water Co. v. Dept. Public Works (1955) 44 Cal.2d 90, 106 [280 P.2d 1].) The majority concedes that plaintiffs had an administrative remedy available to them in the present case, namely, a proceeding under Water Code section 2501 “to seek a board determination of the allocation of water in a stream system,” including “reconsideration of rights previously granted in that system.” (Ante, p. 450.) Nevertheless, the majority *454concludes that prior cases of this court, together with certain statutory provisions permitting (but not requiring) reference of water disputes to the Water Board, both excuse plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedy and allow the courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction in cases of this kind. I reach a contrary conclusion.
As the majority explains {ante, p. 450), earlier cases which held that the court shared concurrent jurisdiction with the Water Board were decided at a time when the board “was an agency of limited scope and power,” without authority to consider many water right issues such as the application of the public trust. Indeed, the Water Board in the present case itself had assumed that it lacked jurisdiction over public trust issues; the board’s 1940 decision granting appropriative permits reflects that assumption. {Ante, pp. 427-428.) If, as the majority now holds, the Water Board’s jurisdiction extends to public trust issues, it is entirely proper to apply the exhaustion of remedies principle and insist that plaintiffs seek reconsideration from the board before litigating the matter in court.
The majority relies primarily upon Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East BayMun. Utility Dist. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 183, 198-200 [161 Cal.Rptr. 466, 605 P.2d 1] (EDF II), but our language in that case supports the view that, in cases of the kind now before us, the board has exclusive jurisdiction. In EDF II, we held that “Apart from overriding considerations,” the courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Water Board to enforce the self-executing constitutional proscriptions against unreasonable water use and diversion. (P. 200.) Most of the “overriding considerations” referred to in EDF II are present here.
Thus, in that case we observed that waste water reclamation disputes require consideration of such complex and “transcendent” factors as the potential danger to public health and safety and the feasibility of reclamation, factors which would require deference to “appropriate administrative agencies,” such as the Water Board, and would foreclose concurrent court jurisdiction. (P. 199; see also Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 327, 343-344 [142 Cal.Rptr. 904, 572 P.2d 1128] (EDF I).) We repeated our earlier observation that “private judicial litigation involves piecemeal adjudication determining only the relative rights of the parties before the court, whereas in administrative proceedings comprehensive adjudication considers the interests of other concerned persons who may not be parties to the court action. ” (EDF II, at p. 199; see In re Waters of Long Valley Creek Stream System (1979) 25 Cal.3d 339, 359-360 [158 Cal.Rptr. 350, 599 P.2d 656].)
The same “overriding considerations” catalogued by us in EDFII seem applicable here. Although this case does not involve waste water reclamation, nevertheless the balancing of public trust values affecting Mono Lake and the *455water rights of a large metropolitan community presents similarly complex, overriding and “transcendent” issues which demand initial consideration by the Water Board. Only the board, which had issued the very licenses and permits now under challenge, possesses the experience and expertise needed to balance all of the various competing interests in reaching a fair and reasonable resolution of this vastly important litigation.
As we noted in EDF I, “The scope and technical complexity of issues concerning water resource management are unequalled by virtually any other type of activity presented to the courts." (20 Cal.3d at p. 344.) As the majority opinion herein amply demonstrates, similar complexities are presented here. The majority concedes that (1) “The present case involves the same considerations as those before us in the EDF cases,” (2) the Water Board possesses the expertise to resolve “the intricacies of water law” and “the economic and engineering problems involved in implementing water policy,” and (3) the board “is charged with a duty of comprehensive planning, a function difficult to perform if some cases bypass board jurisdiction. ” (Ante, p. 450.) Thus, the case for exclusive board jurisdiction seems to me truly overwhelming.
The majority’s suggestion that various statutory provisions contemplate the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction in cases of this kind is unconvincing. These provisions (Wat. Code, §§ 2000, 2001, 2075) merely authorize the courts in water rights cases to refer the issues to the Water Board for its determination as a referee. Obviously, these provisions do not purport to excuse a prior failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before the Water Board. Moreover, these provisions do not attempt to resolve the question, presented in the EDF cases, whether “overriding considerations” dictate an exception to the general rule of concurrent jurisdiction.
As we said in EDF 1, “When ... the statutory pattern regulating a subject matter integrates the administrative agency into the regulatory scheme and the subject of the litigation demands a high level of expertise within the agency’s special competence, we are satisfied that the litigation in the first instance must be addressed to the agency. [Citation.]” (20 Cal.3d at p. 344.) That principle seems fully applicable here.
I would affirm the judgment.
The petitions of real parties in interest State Lands Commission, State of California and State Water Resources Control Board for a rehearing were denied April 14, 1983, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Richardson, J., was of the opinion that the petitions should be granted.