PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

unless the appropriator has gaiued a prescriptive right. Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 293. The right of an overlying owner to protect prospective use against an estahlished appropria- tion was raised in Burr v. Maclay Rancho Water Co. (1908) 154 Cal. 428, 435-436. The court held that the overlying owner who has not yet used an overlying right can obtain a declaratory judgment pro- tecting his or her paramount right. However, until the overlying owner's use of water takes all of the supply, an appropriator has the right to use any existing surplus. Burr, page 436. The court also confirmed the overlying user's right to reasonable protection against pumping which lowers groundwater levels in the overlying owners' wells. Burr, page 438. Limitations on Groundwater Rights Adjudication. Groundwater rights can be determined, and pumping limited, through court adjudications. However, a statutory stream adjudication cannot include a determiuation of percolating groundwater rights. Water Code ~ 2500. The reference procedure applies to all water rights and allows a court to refer matters to the State Board as a referee on any or all matters involved in a lawsuit for the determination of rights to water. Water Code ~~ 2000 et seq. The State Board may also initiate an adjudication to protect the quality of groundwater. Mutual prescription. In 1949, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that added a new principle to the long estab- lished correlative rights doctrine of California. In Pasadena v. Alhambra, most substantial pumpers in the Raymond Basin, both overlying and appropriators, were joined in a suit to determine rights to the groundwater basin. Groundwater levels in the basin had been declining for 22 of the 24 years prior to filing the suit. The plaintiffs claimed that the basin was in a condition of overdraft, and that extractions should be limited to the safe yield of the basin. The court found that groundwater levels in the basin had been progressively falling through both wet and dry cycles and the basin was indeed being overdrafted. The annual safe yield was only about two-thirds of the then current pumping. lfproductiou were to be re- duced to safe yield, the principal issue was how to curtail pumping. Based upon a stipulation accepted by most but not all parties, the court adopted a program of proportionate reductions. In so doing, the court developed the doctrine of "mutual prescription," whereby rights were essentially based on the highest continuous amount of pumping during five years following commencement of the overdraft. Overlying rights are prior to those of appro- priators, unless prescription has occurred. The doctrine of "mutual prescription" elim- inated priorities among overlying and appropriative rights in a long overdrafted groundwater basin. Under the mutual prescription doctrine, shortages were prorated. Chapter 2 Water Rights in California 53