Bulletin No. 29, San Joaquin River Basin

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 1931

Bulletin 29-031 has been divided into three parts because of size. Click on the links to download each section. Part One, Part Two, Part Three

Bulletin 29-031 has been divided into three parts because of size. Click on the links to download each section. Part One, Part Two, Part Three

Bulletin No. 38, Report of Kings River Water Master for the Period 1918-1930

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 1st, 1931

*Scan quality is poor on alternate pages. Researchers may want to contact the California Department of Water Resources, or UC Davis, for access to the original.

*Scan quality is poor on alternate pages. Researchers may want to contact the California Department of Water Resources, or UC Davis, for access to the original.

Bulletin No. 7 California Irrigation District Laws as Amended 1923

State of California | January 1st, 1923

California Law at the Intersection of Water Use and Land Planning: A Report for the California Office of Planning and Research

University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (UC Law SF) | May 13th, 2015

There are no laws in California that require coordination between land planners and water regulators. A local planning commission may approve a new subdivision ev

There are no laws in California that require coordination between land planners and water regulators. A local planning commission may approve a new subdivision even though there may not be enough water to supply the new development. Moreover, local water authorities and the Water Resources Control Board are under no obligation to provide water to developers if the developers do not hold title to a valid claim to water rights. The following survey and report represents a first comprehensive attempt to surface laws that lie at the intersection of land management and water regulations, offering several recommendations for ways in which existing laws can be used to facilitate better coordination between land planners and water managers. These recommendations, contained in Chapters IV-VI, suggest: Redefining the “coordination” requirement of the conservation element in general plans to facilitate coordination; Applying the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act’s sustainability goals to facilitate coordination; Utilizing well moratoria to facilitate coordination while limiting unsustainable growth. This report also contains a summary of our methodology in Chapter II, a historical overview of the relationship between land use and water law in California in Chapter III, and a survey of existing laws and constitutional provisions that are relevant to both land use and water management in Chapters VII and VIII. We hope that this report will serve as a useful tool for lawmakers and regulators to help achieve water security and sustainability for future generations.

California's Area of Origin Laws

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 8th, 2013

California’s Area of Origin Laws have long been in the background of the State’s major water issues. They were enacted 50-80 years ago, are written very generally, an

California’s Area of Origin Laws have long been in the background of the State’s major water issues. They were enacted 50-80 years ago, are written very generally, and have not been subject to a lot of interpretation by the courts. However, they remain a potential linchpin to resolving many of California’s most vexing water disputes. For that reason alone, the Area of Origin Laws are worthy of attention. It is the purpose of this report to: provide a brief description of the Area of Origin Laws, to discuss recent court cases that have discussed them, and to summarize the major principles embodied in the laws.

Center for Biological Diversity vs. Lincoln County Water District

Nevada Appellate Courts | January 25th, 2024

This case examines whether the State Engineer has the authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one "superbasin" based on a shared source of water

This case examines whether the State Engineer has the authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one "superbasin" based on a shared source of water for purposes of the water's administration and management. We also look at whether the State Engineer complied with due process in creating the superbasin at issue here.

Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District, etc. v. Charles E. Adams, et al

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles | December 23rd, 2013

Note from “An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins” by Langridge et al: "Third Amendment Judgment to the Central Basin adjudication ... allo

Note from “An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins” by Langridge et al: "Third Amendment Judgment to the Central Basin adjudication ... allowed parties holding water rights to store water in the Central Basin for later recovery; DWR was replaced with a new Watermaster consisting of three separate arms with different functions: Administrative Body, Water Rights Panel, and a Storage Panel."

Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Contracts Fact Sheet

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | April 6th, 2016

Reclamation fact sheet on the Central Valley Project water contracts.

Reclamation fact sheet on the Central Valley Project water contracts.

Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation—Getting the Record Straight and What It Means for Water Markets

Texas Law Review (SSRN) | June 1st, 2005

In this Article I examine the notorious Owens Valley water transfer to Los Angeles. Not only was it one of the largest private water exchanges in U.S. history, but it rem

In this Article I examine the notorious Owens Valley water transfer to Los Angeles. Not only was it one of the largest private water exchanges in U.S. history, but it remains pivotal in the political economy of western water reallocation. It involved negotiations over land and water rights between representatives of the city of Los Angeles and approximately eighteen hundred farmers and town lot owners between 1905 and 1935. By 1935, Los Angeles had acquired 95 percent of the farm acreage and 88 percent of the town properties in the valley. The water transferred from Owens Valley, a marginal agricultural area, made possible the growth of Los Angeles, and Owens Valley remains the largest single source of water for the Los Angeles Basin. Yet, the Owens Valley transfer has a very negative legacy and has hindered subsequent efforts to reallocate water from agriculture to urban and environmental uses. The negotiations for water rights and land took thirty years to complete and were often acrimonious. I analyze the negotiations between representatives of Los Angeles and Owens Valley farmers to determine the sources of bargaining conflicts. I also evaluate the economic impact of the exchange on both parties to show that each party was made substantially better off. Yet, the notion of “theft” remains. To explain this, I examine the distribution of the economic benefits of the water and land sale. Distributional issues take on greater importance when there are valuation disputes and the gains from trade are shared very unequally. With these insights, I conclude with lessons for contemporary western water reallocation. 

Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino et al

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | August 25th, 2014

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in Southern California. It a

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in Southern California. It abuts Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Riverside County. Over the past few decades, the basin has experienced rapid growth. The southern area was once notable for containing the heaviest concentration of dairy farms in the United States. There is significant subsidence in areas of the basin due to overpumping. While it is often described as a basin with ongoing conflict, there were also significant collaborative efforts to address basin problems during and after the adjudication process. Three different stakeholder groups—overlying agricultural, overlying non-agricultural, and appropriators—negotiated a management plan prior to adjudication, and it was adopted in a 1978 stipulated judgment. Stakeholders agreed on water rights for each group of users. There were multiple additional amendments over the last twenty years adopted in a 2012 restated judgment." Click here for the Chino basin Department of Water Resources Adjudicated Basin Reporting page.