On Feb. 23, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Dow v. Lassen Irrigation Company et al, C091965 as to what it believed to be an issue of first impression—whether a watermaster appointed by the trial court to implement and administer a water rights decree has the right to appeal the trial court’s orders interpreting the decree on the grounds the watermaster disagrees with the trial court’s interpretation and the orders would increase the watermaster’s administrative burdens and costs. In response to respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeal, in a published opinion authored by Justice Ronald Robie, held that the watermaster does not have the right to appeal on the grounds that the watermaster is not aggrieved by the trial court’s interpretation of the water users’ rights under the decree.
Context
In this case, a party owning water rights originating under the 1940 Susan River Decree had challenged the interpretation of the decree by the board of the Honey Lake Valley Resource Conservation District, in its role as the court-appointed watermaster administering the decree. The superior court, however, agreed with the party’s interpretation of the decree and the district appealed the superior court’s orders to the Court of Appeal.
Key Finding
The Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion states, “The watermaster’s sole interest in the decree is to serve as an arm of the court in administering and implementing the terms of the decree in return for compensation. The watermaster has identified no injury to its rights or interests arising from the trial court’s orders interpreting the decree … any increase in the watermaster’s administrative costs associated with the trial court’s orders are not borne by the watermaster but are instead borne by the water users subject to the decree.”
Implications
While this case dealt specifically with the Susan River Decree and the court-appointed watermaster in that case, its holding may also be applicable in the dozens of California stream systems and groundwater basins in which court-appointed watermasters administer decrees or judgments allocating water rights. Given the increasingly heightened concerns over water supply volatility, scarcity and regulatory milestones brought by SGMA to bring overdrafted groundwater basins into balance, the desire for greater water right certainty will undoubtedly be a priority for all water users. In many cases, this will translate to adjudication of additional stream systems and groundwater basins. In these cases, future watermasters will also be guided by the opinion’s holding that, should they disagree with the court’s findings, they lack the right to appeal on the grounds that the watermaster is not aggrieved by the trial court’s interpretation of the water users’ rights under the decree.