The California Water Law Journal is sponsored by the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. The Journal provides an opportunity for students, practitioners, academics and others to engage on California water law issues.
The Journal is proud to feature the winning article each year from the annual student writing competition, the California Water Law Writing Prize. The Writing Prize is sponsored by the California Water Law Symposium Board of Directors and McGeorge School of Law.
To submit other articles, please click the “About” link.
The Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases
Nearly two-thirds of the California population and seven million acres of agricultural land receive water from the State Water Project ("SWP") operated by the California Department of Water Resources ("DWR") or the Central Valley Project ("CVP") operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) (SWP and CVP collectively referred to as "Projects"). In the Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases, two district court opinions for the Eastern District of California review a Biological Opinion ("BiOp") issued in 2008 by the Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") that placed restrictions on the Projects' operations to protect endangered species.
In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases
Nearly two-thirds of the California population and seven million acres of agricultural land receive water from the State Water Project ("SWP") operated by the California Department of Water Resources ("DWR") or the Central Valley Project ("CVP") operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation ("Bureau") (SWP and CVP, collectively referred to as "Projects"). In the Consolidated Salmonid Cases, the Eastern District Court of California reviewed a Biological Opinion ("BiOp") issued in 2009 by the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") that placed restrictions on the Projects' operations to protect endangered species.
California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S. 142 (1935)
In California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., the United States Supreme Court addressed whether federal land patents issued to western settlers pursuant to federal land disposition laws such as the Homestead Act also conveyed federal common law riparian rights to water. The Court held that federal land patents did not include riparian water rights as a matter of federal law. Instead, the Court held that by the 1877 Desert Land Act, Congress had severed water resources from the federal public domain lands; as a result, the states were and are free to develop and enforce their own laws addressing water allocation.