Reynolds

Reynolds v. City of Calistoga CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2014A134190California5,642 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

BACKGROUND

In March 2009, Reynolds filed the instant lawsuit. The operative second amended complaint (complaint) alleges six causes of action, five of which seek damages under a decades-old private water rights agreement between the City and Reynolds’s predecessor in interest (the private damages claims). The disputed water rights involved waters above Kimball Dam (the dam), which is owned and operated by the City. The dam blocks the flow of Kimball Creek and forms the Kimball Reservoir (the reservoir), a source of municipal water for the City pursuant to licenses granted by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board).

1 The remaining cause of action in the complaint alleges the City failed to ensure sufficient water flowed below the dam to sustain a historic steelhead trout population, in violation of Fish and Game Code section 5937 (section 5937) and the public trust doctrine (the public trust claim). The complaint sought an injunction compelling the City “to maintain an adequate flow of water sufficient to restore and sustain the fishery that has been destroyed and will continue to be irreparably harmed if a minimum natural flow of water is not derived from the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.