Cal. Codes » Water Code / DIVISION 6. CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND UTILIZATION OF STATE WATER RESOURCES / PART 3. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT / CHAPTER 1. General Provisions / ARTICLE 1. Definitions
California Codes

Cal. Water Code § 11100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The definitions in this article govern the construction of this part only.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1962–2006 · leading case: State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20038 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20038 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “(Wat. Code, § 11100 et seq.) However, due to the pervasive unfavorable economic conditions during the Great Depression, the state turned to the federal government to finance and construct the massive project.”
United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 182 Cal. App. 3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “(Wat. Code, § 11100 et seq.) 1 However, due to the pervasive unfavorable economic conditions during the Great Depression, the state turned to the federal government to finance and construct the massive project.”
Warne v. Harkness, 387 P.2d 377 (Cal. 1963). “1 In adopting its resolution the department relied on the Central Valley Project Act (Wat. Code, § 11100 et seq.), enacted in 1933 and amended frequently thereafter.”
Metro. Water Dist. v. Marquardt, 379 P.2d 28 (Cal. 1963). “The contract was made on November 4, 1960, between the district and the State of California, acting through its Department of Water Resources, pursuant to the California Water Resources Development Bond Act (Wat.”
Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Cal. Milk Producers Advisory Bd., 82 Cal. App. 3d 433 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). “) repealed authority to issue proposed bonds under an earlier act, the Central Valley Project Act (Wat. Code, § 11100 et seq.). The court stated: “[I]t is settled that there is a presumption against repeal by implication, that to overcome the presumption the two acts must be…”
Metro. Water Dist. v. Marquardt, 379 P.2d 28 (Cal. 1963). “), the sections of the Water Code relating to the Central Valley Project (Wat. Code, § 11100 et seq.), and other legislation.”
United States v. California, 509 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Cal. 1981). “Undoubtedly Congress was cognizant that in 1943, California’s State Legislature passed a detailed outline of the proposed Central Valley Project 19 which had its origin as a comprehensive combined water and power project to be constructed in cooperation with the federal…”
Good v. State of California, 370 P.2d 341 (Cal. 1962). “(Water Code, § 11100 et seq.) It is not entirely clear that this is so, but in any event the determinative consideration is not the legislative declaration but the nature of the activity.”
United States v. State of Cal., 509 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Cal. 1981). “Undoubtedly Congress was cognizant that in 1943, California's State Legislature passed a detailed outline of the proposed Central Valley Project [19] which had its origin as a comprehensive combined water and power project to be constructed in cooperation with the federal…”
California Water Resources Dev. Fin. Comm. v. Betts, 387 P.2d 387 (Cal. 1963). “) The California Water Resources Development Finance Committee 1 seeks a writ of mandate to compel the State Treasurer to publish a notice of sale of Burns-Porter Act bonds in the principal amount of $100,000,000 and to prepare and sell the bonds in accordance with the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.