PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

outside the watershed. However, the riparian right is not lost by diverting water across nonriparian lands. Fall River Valley Irr. Dist. v. Mt. Shasta (1927) 202 Cal. 56, 71-72. Appropriative Water Rights Introduction. The second major doctrine governing surface water rights in California is the law of appropriative rights, which exists concurrently with the doctrine of riparian rights. Lux v. Haggin (1886) 69 Cal. 255. An appropriative right is the right to divert and use a specific quantity of water for reasonable, beneficial use in a specific loca- tion. Unlike the riparian rights doctrine, the historic principle of the prior appropriation doctrine is "first-in-time, first-in-right." An individual who first appropriates and uses water for a reasonable, beneficial purpose has a right which is superior to that of later appropriators. Irwin v. Phillips (1855) 5 Cal. 140, 147; Shirokow, pages 307-308; Water Code S 1450. When the amount of water available is insufficient to meet the needs of all appropriators, traditional case law holds that junior ap- propriators can be prevented from exercising their rights until the water rights of senior appropriators are satisfied. However, this rule seems impractical today, since the cities and water districts provid- ing urban water supplies generally hold appropriative rights. San Bernardino v. Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7; Orange County Water District v. City of Riverside (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 137. Because it is generally unrealistic to terminate such uses completely, courts can be seen to be moving away from a strict application of the first-in- time doctrine in order to protect established uses. See Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 265, fn. 61.; United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, 133. The law of prior appropriation has been adopted by the legislature (see generally Water Code ss 100 et seq., ss 120 et seq., ss 175 et seq.; Civil Code ss 141O(a) et seq.) and the courts. Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irr. Dist. (1929) 207 Cal. 521, 526; Thayer v. California Development Co. (1912) 164 Cal. 117, 125-126. Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works (1955) 44 Cal.2d 90, 95. All waters in excess of the reasonable and beneficial needs oflaw- ful users, including riparians, are considered unappropriated waters and are available for appropriation for beneficial use. Stevinson Water Dist. v. Roduner (1950) 36 Cal.2d 264, 269-270. Water that is diverted pursuant to an appropriative right may be used on or in connection with lands away from streams or outside a watershed, as well as on The traditional rule among appropriators is "first-in-time, first-tn-right. -" Chapter 2 Water Rights in California 39