Check out this case concering an irrigation district!

PICCININI v. OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

JONATHAN PICCININI et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

No. F060990.

Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.

Filed January 4, 2012.

Mayol & Barringer, Bart Barringer; Law Offices of Michael Abbott and Michael L. Abbott for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants.

O'Laughlin & Paris, William C. Paris III and Katie J. Shea for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

---

  

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

HILL, P. J.

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants (appellants) appeal from a judgment declaring the obligations of the defendant and cross-complainant, Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), to deliver water to them under a prior judgment obtained by the predecessors in interest of appellants. Appellants contend the judgment and the statement of decision on which it is based contain ambiguous findings that do not adequately resolve the issues presented. OID cross-appeals from the judgment, contending the judgment erroneously requires it to supply water to appellants year round, rather than only during irrigation season, and it improperly adjudicates a duty to supply water to nonparties to the litigation. We modify the judgment to eliminate the requirement that OID deliver water to the water distributor for the town of Knights Ferry and, as so modified, affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, owners of real property in the vicinity of Knights Ferry, filed a declaratory relief action against OID, alleging they enjoy water rights pursuant to agreement and to the decision of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, which was affirmed on appeal in Brooks v. Oakdale Irrigation District (1928) 90 Cal.App. 225 (Brooks). Plaintiffs sought an interpretation of the decision in the Brooks case, and a judicial declaration that the decision entitled them to a continuous and perpetual flow of four cubic feet per second of water across their lands and required OID to refrain from interfering with the flow of water across their lands when performing maintenance of the ditches and canals that carried the water.

OID cross-complained against plaintiffs and other property owners, alleging it is a political subdivision of the state and provides water service for irrigation and other purposes in Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties. The cross-complaint alleged OID and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) share a pre-1914 appropriative right to divert certain water from the Stanislaus River between March 1 and October 31 of each year, a right which was confirmed by a 1929 decree of the San Joaquin County Superior Court. That right was based in part on the conveyance to OID and SSJID of the Schell Ditch and the water rights associated with it; the Schell ditch delivered water to certain landowners in the vicinity of Knights Ferry, whom OID referred to as the Knights Ferry water users and who were the predecessors in interest of appellants. The Knights Ferry water users were not located within, or customers of, OID or SSJID.

Comments

[Water Purification Manufacturing]

thanks for sharing this..

[wastewater consultants]

What was the outcome of the case?