When the governing body has so determined and declared the existence of an emergency condition of water shortage within its service area, it shall thereupon adopt such regulations and restrictions on the delivery of water and the consumption within said area of water supplied for public use as will in the sound discretion of such governing body conserve the water supply for the greatest public benefit with particular regard to domestic use, sanitation, and fire protection.
Notes of Decisions
Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Util. Dist., 24 Cal. App. 4th 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
“Code, § 350) and the regulation and restriction of the delivery and consumption of water (Wat. Code, § 353) it may be argued persuasively that the attendant costs, both in monetary and societal terms, constitute a subsidy borne by the more responsible majority.”
San Diego Cnty. Water Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist., 117 Cal. App. 4th 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“(Wat. Code, § 353.) The regulations adopted pursuant to Water Code section 350 “shall prevail over the provisions of such laws relating to water rights for the duration of the period of emergency,” thereby preempting the preferential rights calculations made under section 135.”
Lockary v. Kayfetz, 587 F. Supp. 631 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
“” Cal. Water Code § 353 . Additionally, BCPUD may declare a water shortage emergency “whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied” without threatening high priority needs for water.”
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.