Water Replenishment District of Southern California v. City of Cerritos.

This case concerns unused storage space in the Central Basin, an “„area containing a groundwater reservoir capable of furnishing a substantial water supply. (Central and West Basin Water Replenishment Dist. v. Southern Cal. Water Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 891, 896-897, fn. 1 (WRD I).) The Central Basin extends underneath approximately 277 square miles and provides a source of water for cities, municipalities, water companies, school districts, landowners, and others. Appellants seek to amend a judgment, originally issued in 1965, which, among other things, allocated the right to extract water from the Central Basin. In 2003, The Court of Appeal considered a motion seeking to allocate the underground storage space in the Central Basin to persons with the adjudicated right to extract water from the Central Basin. It found that although the court had jurisdiction to consider the motion, the proposed allocation was inconsistent with the mandate for the beneficial use of water as required by the California Constitution. Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution mandates that: "the 3 water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such water is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare". In 2009, appellants moved to amend the judgment to allocate storage space in a manner different from the proposed allocation considered in 2003. The trial court did not consider appellants' motion on the merits, but concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion in general and to implement specific proposed amendments including (1) contracts between water right holders in the Central and West Coast Basins and (2) the appointment of one appellant as the new watermaster. On appeal, appellants challenge the court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction. Because the Appeal Court previously held that the court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to allocate storage in the Central Basin, it reaches the same conclusion here under the doctrine of law of the case. It also conclude that the court erred in (1) finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider a provision governing the contractual transfer of water and (2) finding it was prohibited from appointing one of the appellants as watermaster. The trial court's order is reversed.