20 Cited authorities

Arizona v. California
373 U.S. 546 (1963) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress intended "to leave untouched the law of interstate equitable apportionment" with interstate portion of Section 8
California v. United States
438 U.S. 645 (1978) Cited 158 times
Holding that California may impose conditions on permits granted to the United States for CVP operation
Cappaert v. United States
426 U.S. 128 (1976) Cited 145 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "language of the [Antiquities] Act . . . is not so limited" and includes the authority to reserve rights to unappropriated water within a national monument
United States v. New Mexico
438 U.S. 696 (1978) Cited 123 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing Congressional authority “to reserve unappropriated water in the future for use on appurtenant lands”
U.S. v. Gerlach Live Stock Co.
339 U.S. 725 (1950) Cited 143 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a 1928 amendment to the California Constitution reprioritizing water rights resulted in compensable takings
City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency
23 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2000) Cited 86 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article X, § 2 of the California Constitution"dictates the basic principles defining water rights: that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water, and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially"
Winters v. United States
207 U.S. 564 (1908) Cited 288 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a tribe’s senior, federally-protected right had priority over irrigators’ junior, state-law rights
United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
182 Cal.App.3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 88 times
Finding that "in times of shortage, riparians are entitled to fulfill their needs before appropriators are entitled to any use of the water"
United States v. Adair
723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 84 times
Holding that the Klamath Basin Tribes hold implied water rights to support hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by treaties between Tribes in Oregon and California and United States
United States v. Title Ins. Co.
265 U.S. 472 (1924) Cited 122 times
Declining to overrule precedent where prior ruling "has become a rule of property, and to disturb it now would be fraught with many injurious results"

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District et al

20 Cited authorities

Holding that Congress intended "to leave untouched the law of interstate equitable apportionment" with interstate portion of Section 8

Holding that California may impose conditions on permits granted to the United States for CVP operation

Holding that the "language of the [Antiquities] Act . . . is not so limited" and includes the authority to reserve rights to unappropriated water within a national monument

Recognizing Congressional authority “to reserve unappropriated water in the future for use on appurtenant lands”

Holding that a 1928 amendment to the California Constitution reprioritizing water rights resulted in compensable takings

Holding that Article X, § 2 of the California Constitution"dictates the basic principles defining water rights: that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water, and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially"

Holding that a tribe’s senior, federally-protected right had priority over irrigators’ junior, state-law rights

Finding that "in times of shortage, riparians are entitled to fulfill their needs before appropriators are entitled to any use of the water"

Holding that the Klamath Basin Tribes hold implied water rights to support hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by treaties between Tribes in Oregon and California and United States

Declining to overrule precedent where prior ruling "has become a rule of property, and to disturb it now would be fraught with many injurious results"