Controversies
Known as the County Water District Law
The act spans §§ 30000–33901 (468 sections).
Applied in 3 court decisions — leading case 47 Cal. 2d 140 - Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Kings County Water District (1956)
Most recently applied in 272 F. Supp. 2d 1053 - Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp. (July 2003)
Added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 274.
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
A district may commence, maintain, intervene in, defend, and compromise actions and proceedings to prevent interference with or diminution of the natural flow of any stream or natural subterranean supply of waters which may:
(a) Be used or be useful for any purpose of the district.
(b) Be of common benefit to the land or its inhabitants.
(c) Endanger the inhabitants or land.
Official source: California Legislative Information. Reproduced from public-domain California statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.