PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Effective in 1914. the state established a permit system to appropriate streamflow. This system does not invalidate pre-1914 rights but is the exclusive procedure for acquiring new rights. 42 CALIFORNIA WATER purpose of the use (for example, from agricultural to domestic) as long as other right holders were not injured by the change. Ramelli v.Irish (1892) 96 Cal. 214, 217. If Civil Code provisions were followed, the priority of use of the water "related back" to the original time of posting the notice. Civ. Code ~ 1418 (1872). Since in some instances the entire amount of water intended to be used for a beneficial use could not be immedi- ately utilized, the use could be established over time if the project were diligently pursued, but it could not exceed the amount stated in the notice. The priority for the entire amount of water then related back to the time the appropriation began. As between statutory and nonstatutory appropriators, only a nonstatutory appropriation com- pleted before the posting of statutory notice had a right prior to one obtained through a notice procedure. Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irr. Dist. (1929) 207 Cal. 521,524-525. Between 1872 and 1914, the statutory method was not the exclusive way to acquire water rights. Water could still be appropri- ated simply by taking water and putting it to reasonable use. Lower Tule River Ditch Co. v. Angiola Water Co. (1906) 149 Cal. 496, 499. Water Commission Act (7973). The Water Commission Act, established in 1913 (Stat. 1913, ch. 586, p. 1012) (effective December 19, 1914), resulted in substantial changes in the method for appropriat- ing water. This system is the basis for the appropriation procedure found today in the California Water Code. Water Code ~~ 1200 et seq. The Act provides that all water within the state is the property of the people of the state and that the right to use water can be ac- quired by law. Water Code ~ 102. A permit system was established to allow the Water Commission (now the State Water Resources Con- trol Board) to allocate the state's unappropriated surface waters. These include subterranean streams flowing through known and definite channels as well as the underflow of surface streams. The Act's procedures have become the exclusive manner to obtain such new appropriative rights in California. People v. Shirokow (1980) 26 Cal.3d 301, 309. Although a valid appropriative right to such waters can now be acquired only by filing an application with proper state authorities and by pursuing the appropriation through the neces- sary steps required by the Act, pre-1914 rights obtained under the previous methods are still valid. The Water Commission's authority to issue permits was origi- nally ministerial; that is, if an application complied with all procedures and unappropriated water was available, the commission was obliged to issue the permit. Tulare Water Co. v. State Water Commission