Whether government may avoid constitutional rights to due process and compensation by crafting quasi-legislative regulations that eliminate the property interest of specific individuals and take their property

QUESTIONS PRESENTED California water rights are real property rights pursuant to 160 years of California and Federal case law. “As such, they cannot be infringed by others or taken by government action without due process and just compensation.” United States v. SWRCB, 182 Cal.App.3d 82, 101 (1986). Like nuisance, there is no property right in an “unreasonable” use or diversion of water. Cal. Const. Art. X, § 2. Without due process or just compensation, the State of California adopted and implemented regulations declaring the use and diversion of water by a small group of named water right holders on three small creeks to be “unreasonable.” The State claimed an emergency and argued, and the lower courts accepted, that constitutional rights to due process and compensation were inapplicable because the regulations declared the targeted right holders’ use and diversions of water to be “unreasonable,” and there is no property right in an unreasonable use or diversion of water. The State said it was an emergency in 2014, and again in 2015, and that the actions were “styled” as quasi-legislative regulations because of “exigent” emergency circumstances. Landowners were prohibited from utilizing their property right to divert and use their water for irrigation of crops as they had done for over 100 years. Questions: Whether government may avoid constitutional rights to due process and compensation by crafting ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued quasi-legislative regulations that eliminate the property interest of specific individuals and take their property. Whether government may take the water of adjudicated California water rights for a public use without compensation or due process. Whether an assertion of emergency authority alters constitutional rights to compensation and due process. Whether the public trust doctrine may be asserted to the property rights of Mexican Land Grant lands, and without compensation or balancing. iii LIST OF ALL PARTIES The party to the judgment from which review is sought is Petitioner Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Company (“Petitioner” or “Stanford Vina”). Stanford Vina was a party in all proceedings below. Respondent is the State of California, the State Water Resources Control Board of California and State Water Resources Control Board Members Felicia Marcus, Doreen D’Adamo, Frances Spivy-Weber, Steven Moore, and Tam Dudoc.