Millview Cnty. Water Dist. v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 933·208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745·4 Cal. App. 5th 759·2016 WL 5407695
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2016A145428California5,879 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Margulies, J.

*762 In 2001, Millview County Water District (Millview) began diverting substantial flows from the Russian River under a century-old water rights claim leased from Thomas Hill and Steven Gomes. In 2009, Millview purchased the claim for $2.1 million, just four months after defendant State Water Resources Control Board (Board) issued a notice proposing entry of a cease and desist order (CDO) that would drastically restrict diversion under the claim. After the Board entered the proposed CDO, Millview, Hill, and Gomes (plaintiffs) jointly prevailed in a mandate action filed to challenge the CDO. We affirmed the superior court's order vacating the CDO in Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 879 , 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 ( Millview I ).

Following our decision, plaintiffs sought an award of attorney fees from the Board under Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 1021.5, arguing they had conferred a substantial public benefit by obtaining a published appellate opinion addressing the issue of water rights forfeiture under California law. Plaintiffs argued the action had constituted a "financial burden" to them, as the term is used in section…

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.