PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The underflow of a surface stream is subject to riparian or appropriative rules. 48 CALIFORNIA WATER users for reasonable, beneficial purposes, similar to riparian rights. Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cill. 116, 134-136. Groundwater uses are limited to extracting only the amount necessary for reasonable, beneficial uses on the overlying property. Katz, pages 135-136. However, groundwater that is surplus to the needs of overlying own- ers can be appropriated and used away from the overlying property. Pasadena, pages 925-926. Regulation of groundwater extraction has traditionally been left to the courts under common law principles. Definition of Groundwater. California recognizes several legal clas- sifications of groundwater (depending on its occurrence in various geologic formations) which govern the application of water rights laws. For legal purposes, underground waters are divided into three categories: (1) the underflow of a surface stream; (2) a definite under- ground stream; and (3) percolating waters. Since all underground water is generally presumed to be percolating water, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to prove that the water is underflow or a definite underground stream. Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v. Baldwin (1909) 155 Cal. 280, 284. Underflow of a sutface stream. The underflow of a surface stream consists of the water in the soil, sand, and gravel in the bed of a stream in its natural state and essential to its existence. City of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy (1899) 124 Cal. 597, 623-635. To constitute underflow, the flow must be in a known and definite channel. Water Code S 1200. The underflow may include lateral extensions of the stream on each side of the surface channel if its movement and location can be determined. Larsen v. Apollonio (1936) 5 Cal.2d 440, 444; Peabody, page 375. The party who owns the right to the surface flow has the same rights to the underflow. Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail (1938) 11 Cal.2d 501, 556, 560-561; Peabody, pages 375-76; Vineland Irr. Dist. v. Azusa Irr. Co. (1899) 126 Cal. 486, 495. Underground streams. Groundwater also includes an underground stream which flows in a known and definite channel in a subterra- nean watercourse. Cave v. Tyler (1905) 147 Cal. 454, 456; Water Code S 1200. A definite channel is defined as a "contracted and bounded channel" and knowledge must exist as to the course of the stream by "reasonable inference."12 Proof of the existence of an underground stream is shown through the direction of flow, confinement within the watercourse banks, and flow within a defined channel. Pomeroy, 12 Hutchins, pages 419-420.