Planning commission hears legal overview of public trust doctrine, lingering questions about groundwater and water rights

At a Planning Commission meeting, a staff legal presenter summarized the history and practical implications of the public trust doctrine and flagged several open legal questions for Siskiyou County regulators and landowners.

"The idea of the public trust is that certain resources are held for the benefit of the public," the presenter said, describing the doctrine’s roots in Roman and English common law and its recognition in U.S. and California cases. He cited an Illinois U.S. Supreme Court case on submerged lands, the Mono Lake/ Audubon-style decisions in California, a case called Martin, and more recent appellate rulings that bear on groundwater-surface water connections.

Why it matters: commissioners were told the doctrine can require government decision‑makers to consider public uses such as navigation, fishing and recreation when approving projects that affect resources, even when a project may otherwise qualify for a CEQA exemption.

The presenter told the commission "it actually is a doctrine that exists outside of CEQA," and gave an example in which a renewal with a CEQA exemption still required public‑trust consideration. He also described a third‑district appellate decision cited in the meeting — referred to in the discussion as the "ELF" case — for the proposition that groundwater may be subject to public‑trust considerations when pumping or use would affect a public trust surface water such as the Scott River.

Commissioners pressed on enforcement and scope. One asked whether the doctrine can trigger takings law; the presenter said federal and state courts have not definitively resolved whether applying the public trust doctrine creates a compensable taking, citing a Ninth Circuit referral in a Walker Lake matter that left the question open. He summarized legal commentary suggesting the doctrine may be viewed as a preexisting limitation on property rather than a compensable taking, but emphasized that commentary is not court precedent.

Commissioners also asked who can act if a private activity harms a public trust resource. The presenter said enforcement typically rests with the state or other public agencies and noted that private parties may bring litigation in some circumstances, but enforcement decisions are often discretionary. Community Development Director Rick Dean added that the doctrine is often understood broadly at the agency level and is principally concerned with streamflow effects that degrade habitat whether or not the species affected are listed.

Speakers identified practical local issues: connection between groundwater and surface water in places such as Shasta and Scott valleys, ongoing flow‑modeling work (staff referenced model run parameters, noting a focus on whether 65% or 75% of flow returns to a system), and pending monitoring and regulatory processes including irrigated‑lands waste discharge permits and testing of drinking wells for contaminants. Commissioners discussed that establishing whether an aquifer is "groundwater" or an "underground stream" with direct hydraulic connection to surface flow is central to whether public‑trust doctrine applies in a given place.

No formal action was taken; the briefing was recorded as background for future project review, CEQA analysis and coordination with state water and water‑quality agencies.