## Facts

- A private landowner complained that Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID) water practices caused the Salton Sea to rise and flood his farmland.
- The Department of Water Resources investigated, initially concluded there was water waste, and referred the matter to the State Water Resources Control Board after unsuccessful efforts to resolve it with IID.
- The Board conducted a six-day evidentiary hearing in 1983 with evidence from IID, the complainant, state agencies, and an intervening environmental organization.
- In Decision 1600 (1984), the Board found substantial water losses attributable to IID, including canal spills, excess tailwater runoff, and canal seepage, constituting unreasonable use and waste.
- The Board ordered prospective corrective measures, including a conservation plan, plans to construct regulating reservoirs, and periodic progress reports.
- IID sought mandamus relief, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over IID’s water use because IID relied largely on pre-1914 appropriative rights.
- The trial court, limiting the proceeding to jurisdiction by stipulation, agreed with IID and set aside the Board’s asserted authority.

## Issues

1. Whether the State Water Resources Control Board has jurisdiction under California Constitution article X, section 2 and the Water Code to determine that IID’s use of water is unreasonable or wasteful and to order corrective measures, even if IID’s rights are pre-1914 appropriative rights.
2. Whether the Board’s order constituted an impermissible adjudication of water rights priority and allocation, or a permissible enforcement of the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable use and waste.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling that the Board lacked jurisdiction.
- The court held the Board may adjudicate whether IID’s water use and methods are unreasonable or wasteful under article X, section 2, notwithstanding the pre-1914 character of IID’s appropriative rights.
- The court concluded Decision 1600 addressed unreasonable use and waste (the manner of exercising a right), not a comprehensive adjudication of the existence, scope, or priority of IID’s water rights.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings, including review of the Board’s decision on the merits under the proper standard.

## Legal Principles

- California Constitution article X, section 2 limits all water rights to water reasonably required for beneficial use and forbids waste and unreasonable use or methods of use.
- Pre-1914 appropriative rights are subject to article X, section 2 and are not immune from administrative proceedings assessing unreasonable use and waste.
- The Water Code authorizes the Board to investigate waste and unreasonable use, conduct hearings, make findings, and issue orders requiring corrective measures to abate unreasonable use or waste.
- The Board’s reasonableness review concerns the manner and efficiency of use and is distinct from adjudicating water-right title, scope, or priority.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held the State Water Resources Control Board has jurisdiction to enforce the constitutional reasonable-use mandate against IID’s irrigation practices and to order corrective measures to prevent waste, even where IID’s water supply rests largely on pre-1914 appropriative rights, and remanded for further proceedings on the merits.


Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 225 Cal. App. 3d 548, 275 Cal. Rptr. 250 (Ct. App. 1990)