People v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court Feb 7, 1950 No. L. A. 19404Published

Before: Traynor

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the city is obligated to divert Owens River water within the reasonable capacity of its aqueduct system, excluding the Long Valley Dam, and is prohibited from diverting Mono Basin waters if such diversion necessitates releasing water onto Owens Lake. The original injunction was modified to exclude the Long Valley Dam from the city's mandatory control facilities and to clarify the city's obligations regarding water spreading on its lands.

Issues

Whether the city's obligation to divert water can be enforced by injunction.
Whether the city's Long Valley Dam must be included as a facility for controlling Owens Valley waters.
Whether the city is obligated to divert Mono Basin waters in a manner that avoids overtaxing the aqueduct system and flooding Owens Lake.
Whether the city is obligated to spread water on its Owens Valley lands in excess of reasonable agricultural or storage needs.

Disposition. affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The city remains obligated, as it was in 1937, to divert into its aqueduct system all of the flow of the Owens River not in excess of the reasonable capacity of that system exclusive of the Long Valley Dam.”

“The city is obligated not to increase the natural flow of the Owens River by diverting into it waters of the Mono Basin watershed, if such a diversion would necessitate the release of water onto Owens Lake.”

“The injunction must therefore be modified to exclude the Long Valley Dam from the facilities that must be devoted to the control of the natural flow of the Owens River”

TRAYNOR, J.

In 1913, defendant city of Los Angeles completed its aqueduct to the Owens River, which previously emptied into Owens Lake, a salt-water lake without outlet. The city completed in 1939 an extension of its aqueduct system into the Mono Basin watershed and in 1941 its Long Valley Dam at the upper end of Owens Valley. From 1919 to 1937 it diverted virtually all the flow of the Owens River into its aqueduct above Owens Lake. By 1921 the lake was dry and remained so until 1937; as a consequence valuable mineral deposits in the bed of the lake were made available. In 1937, 1938, and 1939, the city released large quantities of water onto the lake bed, causing extensive damage to the mineral deposits and chemical plants located on the lake bed. In 1939, the state, as owner of the lake bed, brought this action for an injunction to define the extent to which the city may release water onto the lake bed. The trial court granted an injunction and the city has appealed.

The judgment entered enjoins the city from:

“(1) Diverting any or all waters from the Mono Basin watershed or waters partially comprised of, or augmented by

[697]

said foreign Mono waters, ont of defendants’ aqueduct system into or onto Owens Lake, Inyo County, California, or in any way releasing such foreign Mono waters from the Mono Basin watershed, or waters partially comprising of or augmented by said foreign Mono waters, to be deposited into or onto said Owens Lake;

“ (2) Diverting any or all waters of the Owens River and its tributaries out of defendants’ aqueduct system onto Owens Lake, Inyo County, California, or in any way releasing waters of said Owens River, or its tributaries to be deposited into or onto said Owens Lake, which are not in excess of an amount equal to the reasonable capacity of defendants’ aqueduct system and all of its component facilities reasonably operated. ’ ’

The principles governing the disposition of this case were set forth in

Natural Soda Products Co.

City of Los Angeles,

People v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

TRAYNOR, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief