OCR Text |
Show 468 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES Court Reference Procedure The California court reference procedure authorizes trial courts of the State, in any suit brought for "determination of rights to water," to order a reference to the State Water Resources Control Board, as referee, of any or all issues involved.137 Or the court may refer the suit to the Board for investigation of and report upon any or all of the physical facts involved.138 The Board may make investigations and may hold hearings and take testimony.139 After considering objections of the parties, the Board's report is filed with the court,140 where it is subject to the review on exceptions taken by parties and where evidence may be heard in rebuttal.141 Ordering the reference is discretionary with the trial court;142 and it may make the reference either with or without a request from the parties.143 " [I] n view of the complexity of the actual issues in water cases and the great public interests involved," the California Supreme Court has commended this statutory plan to the trial courts for expediting the determination of conflicting water rights by reference to the State agency;144 and its constitutionality was sustained under attack.145 The Board is also authorized to accept a reference, as master or referee, from a Federal court in case suit is brought therein for determination of rights to water within or partially within the State.146 137/Cal. Water Code § 2000 (West Supp. 1970). The report of the Board may include such opinions upon the law and facts as it deems proper and such findings of fact and conclusions of law as may be required by the court's order of reference. Id. § 2011; Cal. Water Code § 2012 (1956). 138Cal. Water Code § 2001 (West Supp. 1970). 139Id. § 2010. 140Id. § 2016. I4I/d. §§ 2017 and 2019. 142Allen v. California Water & Tel. Co., 29 Cal. (2d) 466, 489,176 Pac. (2d) 8 (1946). ^Tulare In. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 575, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935). '^Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 917, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1947). "The facilities of the commission can, in this manner, be made available to the trial court and that court can thus secure independent and impartial expert advice not colored by personal interest. Incidentally, the procedure outlined in this section will secure representation of the state in such actions, thus insuring the protection of the rights of the public." Tulare In. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 575, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935). "This method would seem to be especially desirable where the state's interest in the excess waters of the stream may be made to appear and the claim of public agencies as users on the stream render it burdensome for private users severally to assert their rights." On the other hand, individual suits in which the issues are confined to those of a few parties have been said to constitute a method of resolving controversies that is "necessarily piecemeal, unduly expensive and obviously unsatisfactory." Meridian v. San Franciso, 13 Cal. (2d) 424, 457-458, 90 Pac. (2d) 537 (1939). See Fleming v. Bennett, 18 Cal. (2d) 518, 527-528, 116 Pac. (2d) 442 (1941). ^Fleming v. Bennett, 18 Cal. (2d) 518, 523-528, 116 Pac. (2d) 442 (1941); Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 917, 918, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). 146Cal. Water Code § § 2075 and 2076 (West Supp. 1970). |