—in mandamus action, farmer properly stated claim that irrigation district had duty under article X, section 2 and other statutes "to avoid wasting water, prevent flooding resulting from its irrigation practices and provide drainage made necessary by its activities

At one time, it was thought to be settled law that an order denying a writ of mandate was an appealable order unless the trial court contemplated further orders or action on the petition

The court noted "[a] public agency can be compelled to act to prevent a waste of water pursuant to this constitutional duty

Moreover, despite the fact that there remain pending in the trial court additional claims that have not been resolved, the order denying a petition for writ of mandate under CEQA is treated as an appealable final judgment

We do not dispute that government actors are bound by the self-executing proscriptions of article X, section 2, and therefore can be held accountable in court or before the proper administrative agencies if they use water in a wasteful and unreasonable manner

The court found the district had a mandatory duty "to avoid water waste, prevent flooding resulting from its irrigation practices and provide drainage made necessary by its activities

Until recently, the cases construing the 1928 amendment have generally involved challenges by one water user or developer to another water developer's use

To the extent the Elmore court cited to the constitutional duty to prevent water waste, the court was addressing the water district's documented fresh water waste