PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Since 1914. a right to store water can be obtained against the state only through the pennit process. 46 CALIFOR"IA WATER of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Haight. page 435. Additionally, diligence depends on many factors such as the type of terrain, climate, construction difficulties, time requirements, and the time that water can be used. Kimball v. Gearhart (1859) 12 Cal. 27, 30. Municipalities have higher priorities in the use of water, and a less stringent standard of diligence in the construction of diversion works. Water Code ~~ 1460,1462-1464. Loss/severance of rights Condemnation/prescription. An appropriative right can be lost in several ways, including through eminent domain or inverse con- demnation. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal Co. v. Stevinson (1912) 164 Cal. 221, 225-227. Prescription. Traditionally, a right may also be lost by prescription. If a continuous use of water is made which is adverse to an existing right, is uninterrupted for five years, and is open, notorious, exclusive. and under claim of right, the prior right may be lost. However, a right held by a public entity, including the state and the federal government, may not be lost by prescription. Civ. Code ~ 1007. Whether it has been legally possible since 1914 to acquire a diversion right by prescription-that is, by use alone without going through the permit process-has been the subject of litigation. In People v. Shirokow (1980) 26 Cal.3d 301, the California Supreme Court held that the permit process is the only means of acquiring an appropriative right (in this case to store water) against the state. However, it did not consider the issue of whether prescriptive rights may still exist as between private parties where the statutory appro- priation procedure has not been followed. The court left undecided the issue of whether the prescriptive rights doctrine was valid among private parties.1o Abandonment. Appropriative rights may be lost by abandonment. Wood v. Etiwanda Water Co. (1905) 147 Cal. 228, 233-234. Once water rights are abandoned, there can be no reversion to the ap- propriator because the rights cease to exist. The water becomes part of the watercourse subject to future water claims. Smith v. Hawkins (1895) 110 Cal. 122, 126. There are two requirements for abandonment: (1) relinquishment of possession; and (2) the per- manent intent to abandon the water. The intent to abandon must be permanent and the appropriator must have no intention to repossess. Wood, page 234. 10 Atwater and Markle, "Overview of California 'Vater Rights and Water Quality Law," 1988, 19 Pacific L.J. 957.983-984.