Quantcast
Channel: 111 North Hill Street
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 866

Whiskey is for Drinking . . .

$
0
0

Dow v. Lassen Irrigation Co., No. C091965 (D3 Feb. 23, 2022)

This is a water dispute over an 80-year old consent decree. Under the decree, an organization called the Watermaster is vested, as an agent of the court, with some degree of discretion in administering the decree by doling out the water in the Susan River. Plaintiff in the case asked the Watermaster to allot some water in certain ways, which the Watermaster denied. A series of administrative appeals ensued and ultimately Plaintiff sued the Watermaster and some other party allotted water rights under the decree in superior court. The superior court ruled for Plaintiff. The Watermaster appealed.

The issue here is that only a “party aggrieved” can appeal. See Code Civ. Proc. § 902. The Watermaster is not such a party. It doesn’t get any more or less water because of the superior court’s order. It is more along the lines of a discovery master whose ruling got overturned. The Watermaster tries to argue that it is aggrieved because the court’s ruling will make the decree more difficult to administer. But the Watermaster is compensated for administrative expenses, which are passed on to the owners of the water rights.

Of course, water in California being a finite thing, the other party whose water rights will be affected by the court’s order is “aggrieved.” But the Court of Appeal will handle that separately.

Appeal dismissed.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 866

Trending Articles