Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board

California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District · 2018 · Property

237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393

Updated July 19, 2026

propertypublic trust doctrinegroundwaterwater lawpublic trustgroundwater extractionnavigable waterwayScott River

Facts

The Scott River in Siskiyou County is a navigable waterway for purposes of the public trust doctrine. Groundwater pumping outside the area covered by the 1980 Scott River Decree was occurring in the Scott River system, and stipulated facts stated that pumping of interconnected groundwater affecting surface flows was occurring outside the decree area. The County had a permit program for new wells and a groundwater management program regulating extraction for use outside the basin. The remaining dispute sought only declaratory rulings on whether the public trust doctrine required the County and the Board to consider impacts of groundwater extraction on the Scott River and whether SGMA eliminated any such duty.

Issue

Does the public trust doctrine apply to groundwater extraction to the extent the extraction adversely affects a navigable waterway such as the Scott River? If so, did the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act abolish or replace the County's and the Board's common law duty to consider public trust impacts?

Rule

The public trust doctrine is triggered not because groundwater itself is a trust resource, but because extraction of groundwater that adversely impacts a navigable waterway harms a public trust resource. The state has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in planning and allocating water resources and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible, and a statute will not impliedly repeal that common law duty unless the Legislature clearly intended to occupy the field or the laws cannot be harmonized.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In northern California, Pine Hollow County issues permits for new irrigation wells near the Elk River. Scientists retained by the county report that pumping from the connected aquifer is likely to reduce late-summer river flows and interfere with boating and fish habitat on the Elk River, which is navigable.

If a conservation group seeks a declaration that the county must account for the river impacts before approving the wells, what is the best analysis?

Explanation. The majority held the doctrine is triggered not because groundwater is itself a trust resource, but because extraction that adversely impacts a navigable waterway harms a public trust resource. The county's duty is to consider those effects on the navigable river and protect public trust uses when feasible. The opinion expressly rejected making navigability of the groundwater the key inquiry.