On May 5, 2025, the Fresno County Superior Court ruled that the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) exceeded its statutory authority in issuing a cease-and-desist order that attempted to regulate the taking of groundwater by a commercial water bottling company. (BlueTriton Brands, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04292.) If the Court’s decision stands, it will limit the State Water Board’s jurisdiction over subterranean water that may eventually flow to the surface but is not part of a subterranean stream flowing through known and definite channels.

The State Water Board issued the cease-and-desist order on September 19, 2023, and soon thereafter the affected water bottling company sued, challenging the State Water Board’s authority to issue such an order in the first place. The Court reasoned that the primary issue was whether the water at issue is groundwater or a “subterranean stream[] flowing through known and definite channels.” The Court examined the statutory language concerning the State Water Board’s authority. California Water Code sections 1200 and 1201 grant the State Water Board authority to regulate “all water flowing in any natural channel” and “subterranean streams flowing through known and definite channels.” Water Code section 1221 prohibits the State Water Board from regulating groundwater “in any manner.” This issue proved to be dispositive, and the Court sided with the water bottling company.

The Court reasoned that because no known above-ground stream feeds the water in the aquifers beneath the subject tunnels and boreholes, there are no “known and definite channels” as the Water Code requires to provide the State Water Board with regulatory jurisdiction. Rather, according to the Court, to be considered a “subterranean stream[] flowing through known and definite channels,” there must be “a point A where an above ground stream becomes subterranean and a point B where the subterranean stream resurfaces.” The Court concluded that without a “known starting point” to a subterranean stream, there are no “known and definite channels.”

The Court opined that a contrary holding would significantly expand the authority of the State Water Board to include “all aquifers which eventually percolate naturally somewhere,” and according to the Court, such an expansion of authority was not the intent of California voters when they approved the State Water Commission Act in 1914. The Court reviewed case law prior to the passage of the State Water Commission Act to support a conclusion that the State Water Board, in issuing the cease-and-desist order, acted in a manner that California “voters intended to prevent and what Cal. Water Code § 1221 prohibits.” Accordingly, the Court held that the State Water Board exceeded its jurisdiction and set aside the cease-and-desist order.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision narrows the State Water Board’s authority by further restricting what constitutes “subterranean streams with known and definite channels.” Notably, it is the first time a court has held that to constitute a subterranean stream under Water Code section 1200, there must be a “known starting point,” which “implies there is a point A where an above-ground stream becomes subterranean and a point B where the subterranean stream resurfaces.”

For inquiries or additional information, please contact:

• Danielle D. Fatta, dfatta@somachlaw.com

Somach Simmons & Dunn provides the information in its Environmental Law & Policy Alerts and on its website for informational purposes only. This general information is not a substitute for legal advice, and users should consult with legal counsel for specific advice. In addition, using this information or sending electronic mail to Somach Simmons & Dunn or its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship with Somach Simmons & Dunn.