What is the scope of review in a mandamus application?

⁷ We reject certain of Abatti's assertions regarding the scope of review. First, Abatti disputes that the substantial evidence standard of review is at issue; however, application of the abuse of discretion standard will often call for an assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding at issue. Second, Abatti argues that the superior court must conduct independent review if fundamental rights are involved. This principle applies to administrative, not ordinary, mandamus. (Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 5, 252 Cal.Rptr. 620.) Finally, we disagree with Abatti's assertion that under In Re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 275 Cal.Rptr. 797, 800 P.2d 1227, we are bound by factual findings to which the District did not object. One must object to avoid implied findings (id. at pp. 1133-1134, 275 Cal.Rptr. 797, 800 P.2d 1227 ), but this does not mean that such findings are not subject to review for substantial evidence.

⁸ A notice of appropriation was an early method of asserting appropriative rights, as was actual use. (Civ. Code, 1415 ; De Necochea v. Curtis (1889) 80 Cal. 397, 407-408, 20 P. 563 (Curtis ).) We discuss appropriative rights in more detail, post.