Public Trust             Sonoma County's water system was described eloquently by Robert Curry, Geologist and consultant for the Integrated Watershed Group.  He stated, "Sonoma County is uniquely sited because its surface aquifers are located in proximity to high demand water regions in the Bay Area...Only Sonoma County and Los Angeles counties have in-place pipeline transmission systems for domestic water transfers, and only Sonoma County has the ability to make widespread use of its storage capacity...Sonoma County is ideally provided with both surface water and groundwater basins...The Key issue to address in the ARM [Aggregate Resources Management] Plan Update is the maintenance and protection of these great and invaluable water resources."              The State Lands Commission (SLC) administers policies established by the legislature for the management and protection of sovereign lands received from the federal government upon the states entry into the union.  These lands include the beds of all naturally navigable water-ways.  The Russian River is a navigable river as established in the case of Hitchings v. Del Rio Woods Recreation and Park District in 1976.  The Public trust's legal trail leads back from California law to British and Spanish laws, which in turn reach even further back to Roman times.  In the sixth century the Institutes of Justinian stated. "...by the law of nature these things are common to mankind - the air, running water, the seas and consequently the shores of the sea."  This was a simple restatement of what was then already an ancient law -- that water is common property, held in trust for all the people and for future generations.             The Public Trust Doctrine, then, imposes on the individual states through the sovereign right of the Federal Union, a trust obligation for publicly owned resources on behalf of all people.  Public rights are considered superior to private rights.  As stated in a recent riparian court case, "Private land owners hold title to land with the public trust lingering over the land like the smile of a juridical Cheshire cat."  In the California Supreme Court's decision titled "National Audubon/Mono Lake case", they confirmed that the state has "an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible."  The Doctrine may be enforced even though an activity, such as gravel mining has a regulatory permit but wherein the permit was granted without adequate consideration of the doctrine.  Thus there is allowance for a decision to be reconsidered and amended at any time, even if the deadline for challenge to any associated permit has passed.             A question, rhetorically stated but ripe for action, was asked by Attorney Richard Roos-Collins of the Natural Heritage Institute who acted on the Audubon case.  "Given the scope and power of the doctrine, why are the public trust resources of the Russian River in their current, degraded condition?"  He answers, "The doctrine is not being adequately enforced by the very State agencies which have jurisdiction over these resources.  The doctrine does not implement itself; property deeds and water rights do not automatically reference State interests under the doctrine; so compliance with the doctrine depends on the initiatives of State agencies."             Where does the jurisdiction lie?  Under the public trust doctrine, the State owns fee title to all lands below the low water mark of the Russian River.  Lands between the low and high water marks may be privately owned, but the State retains an easement interest to serve trust uses.  These interest generally include the now-leveed lands which the Russian River once occupied.  The SLC has exclusive authority to regulate all uses of trust lands to prevent unlawful harm.  The SLC has the ability to take quiet title and to delineate the boundaries of the State's trust lands.  They can eject unpermited activity and regulate any uses inconsistent with the public trust or that are a public nuisance. They also can assure public access to the river.             All waters of the Russian River, whether it be the headwaters or the estuary, the tributaries or the connected groundwater are under the control of the public trust doctrine.  However, the SLC has never delineated the boundaries of the trust lands and therefore has not made informed determinations whether current permited and unpermited uses are consistent with the public trust doctrine.