Cal. WAT § 1227.2
This is the official text of Cal. WAT § 1227.2, part of California’s Water Code — governs water rights and water resource management.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Official statutory text
(a) Subject to subdivisions (b) and (c), any use for which a statement is submitted to the board pursuant to Section 1227.1 has a priority for the appropriation of water as of the date of initial use of the water, except that all permits and licenses issued by the board on applications, including those filed by the department pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 10500) of Division 6, filed prior to July 1, 1984, have priority over any water right claimed by the United States pursuant to this article. Any use for which a statement is required shall be subject to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11460) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 6, in a like manner as the Central Valley Project.
(b) The scope of any appropriative right recognized pursuant to this article, including terms and conditions judged necessary by the board to best develop, conserve, and utilize the appropriated water in the public interest, shall be determined when that scope is at issue in any of the following proceedings:
(1) A proceeding upon an application, permit, or license of another, pursuant to this part, where the United States is a protestant or interested party.
(2) A proceeding to determine all rights to water of a stream system pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 2500) of Part 3.
(3) A general adjudication of water rights commenced in the courts of this state.
(4) A proceeding to determine whether the board should commence an action pursuant to Section 1052, whether the United States is a complainant or a respondent.
(5) A proceeding under Section 275 and rules of the board in implementation thereof, whether the United States is a complainant or a respondent.
(c) The board shall, following any determination pursuant to subdivision (b), issue evidence of the scope of the right so determined; provided, that in no event, either prior or subsequent to the determination, shall the right exceed the amount of water that may be reasonably used without waste and under reasonable methods of use and diversion.
(b) The scope of any appropriative right recognized pursuant to this article, including terms and conditions judged necessary by the board to best develop, conserve, and utilize the appropriated water in the public interest, shall be determined when that scope is at issue in any of the following proceedings:
(1) A proceeding upon an application, permit, or license of another, pursuant to this part, where the United States is a protestant or interested party.
(2) A proceeding to determine all rights to water of a stream system pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 2500) of Part 3.
(3) A general adjudication of water rights commenced in the courts of this state.
(4) A proceeding to determine whether the board should commence an action pursuant to Section 1052, whether the United States is a complainant or a respondent.
(5) A proceeding under Section 275 and rules of the board in implementation thereof, whether the United States is a complainant or a respondent.
(c) The board shall, following any determination pursuant to subdivision (b), issue evidence of the scope of the right so determined; provided, that in no event, either prior or subsequent to the determination, shall the right exceed the amount of water that may be reasonably used without waste and under reasonable methods of use and diversion.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in California?
Find a California lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.