Consolidated appeals of plaintiff water users and purchasers challenged the order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which commanded defendant board to set aside its water quality plan and water rights decision on grounds that defendant exceeded its authority ordering curtailments to preserve water quality and failed to provide more stringent quality standards.

Plaintiff water users and purchasers sought writs of mandate to invalidate defendant board's water quality plan and water rights decision on the grounds that defendant exceeded its authority ordering curtailments to preserve water quality and that it failed to provide more stringent water quality standards. The trial court granted the writ and remanded. The trial Business acquisition lawyer did not make factual findings, and the court limited its review to the legal question of defendant's powers and duties and did not consider the factual question of reasonableness. The court reversed with directions to deny the writ. The court found that defendant's primary duty was to provide "reasonable protection" to beneficial uses, considering all the demands made upon the water under Cal. Water Code §§ 13000, 13241. Defendant's power to set permit terms and conditions and to modify permits included the authority to impose responsibility to maintain water quality upon permitted projects equally, to give higher priority to more preferred beneficial uses, to impose monitoring conditions, and to set standards to protect municipal or domestic supplies and fish and wildlife.

The court reversed the trial court's judgment with directions to enter judgment denying the writ because defendant board's jurisdiction over the issuance and modification of water permits included authority to reconsider allocations and to impose conditions to protect water quality for domestic supplies and to protect fish and wildlife.

Consolidated appeals of plaintiff water users and purchasers challenged the order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which commanded defendant board to set aside its water quality plan and water rights decision on grounds that defendant exceeded its authority ordering curtailments to preserve water quality and failed to provide more stringent quality standards.

Plaintiff water users and purchasers sought writs of mandate to invalidate defendant board's water quality plan and water rights decision on the grounds that defendant exceeded its authority ordering curtailments to preserve water quality and that it failed to provide more stringent water quality standards. The trial court granted the writ and remanded. The trial court did not make factual findings, and the court limited its review to the legal question of defendant's powers and duties and did not consider the factual question of reasonableness. The court reversed with directions to deny the writ. The court found that defendant's primary duty was to provide "reasonable protection" to beneficial uses, considering all the demands made upon the water under Cal. Water Code §§ 13000, 13241. Defendant's power to set permit terms and conditions and to modify permits included the authority to impose responsibility to maintain water quality upon permitted projects equally, to give higher priority to more preferred beneficial uses, to impose monitoring conditions, and to set standards to protect municipal or domestic supplies and fish and wildlife.

The court reversed the trial court's judgment with directions to enter judgment denying the writ because defendant board's jurisdiction over the issuance and modification of water permits included authority to reconsider allocations and to impose conditions to protect water quality for domestic supplies and to protect fish and wildlife.