California Codes

Cal. Water Code § 1243 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The use of water for recreation and preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources is a beneficial use of water. In determining the amount of water available for appropriation for other beneficial uses, the board shall take into account, when it is in the public interest, the amounts of water required for recreation and the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.

(b)The board shall notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife of an application for a permit to appropriate water. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall recommend the amounts of water, if any, required for the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and shall report its findings to the board.

(c)This section does not affect riparian rights.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983). · cites it 5× “) The point is now settled by statute, Water Code section 1243 providing that "[t]he use of water for recreation and preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources is a beneficial use of water.”

Fullerton v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 90 Cal. App. 3d 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “X, as adopted June 8, 1976; Wat. Code, § 1243, as amended by Stats. 1972,-ch.”

California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 90 Cal. App. 3d 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “" (Wat. Code, § 1243.) Moreover, there is nothing in the code that prohibits appropriation for in-stream use.”

Siskiyou Cnty. Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 237 Cal. App. 4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “) Water Code section 1243, which declares preservation of fish as a beneficial use of water when the Board considers requests for water appropriations, recognizes the overlapping expertise of the Board and the Department, partly providing: “The board shall notify the…”

California Trout, Inc. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal. App. 3d 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “, Wat. Code, §§ 1243, 1253, 1254, 1256, 1257.”

Cnty. of Trinity v. Andrus, 438 F. Supp. 1368 (E.D. Cal. 1977). “Since recreation and the preservation of fish are “beneficial uses” of water independent of the income derived therefrom, Cal. Water Code § 1243 (West Supp.1977), the Watershed Protection Act appears to require the Secretary to provide any water “reasonably required to…”

In Re Consol. Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Water Code § 1243 . In addition to requiring compliance with California's reasonable and beneficial use standard, D-1641 imposes a condition upon both Reclamation's and DWR's water rights requiring both to "meet[] all requirements of the applicable Endangered Species Act…”

United States v. California, 509 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Cal. 1981). “In making this determination, the Board was following the mandate of the legislature contained in California Water Code Sections 1243 and 1257.”

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 791 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Water Code § 1243 . In addition to requiring compliance with California’s reasonable and beneficial use standard, D-1641 imposes a condition upon both Reclamation’s and DWR’s water rights requiring both to “meet[ ] all requirements of the applicable Endangered Species Act…”

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “Cal. Water Code § 1243 . In 2012, when Reclamation previously made a flow augmentation release similar to the one proposed for 2013, Reclamation sought to confirm that the augmentation flows would be consistent with its existing permits by submitting a temporary urgency petition…”

Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “(Wat. Code, § 1243, subd. (a).) It is important to note that while these uses are sometimes expressed in a hierarchical fashion (“highest use,” “next highest use”), that does not mean that the highest use always prevails to the greatest extent possible over a lesser beneficial…”

Siskiyou Co. Farm Bureau v. Dept. Fish & Wildlife (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “(See Wat. Code, §§ 1243 [fish and wildlife resources are a beneficial use], 1253 [Board shall allow appropriation of water “for beneficial purposes” that “in its judgment will best develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water”], 13000 [“activities and factors…”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.