PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

basis of mutual prescription. What principles will apply in the future (when a pueblo right does not control) remains uncertain. Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90-91; Tehachapi- Cummings, pages 1000-1002. The Los Angeles v. San Fernando decision seems to indicate that prescription against overlying owners may be limited by the owners' "self help," that is, by exercising their rights and pumping water. 14 Cal.3d 293, fn. 101. It is not clear, however, whether overlying rights which have not been exercised can be lost by prescription. A cryptic footnote states that the prescriptive rights of appropriators (cities and public utility water companies) "would not necessarily impair the private defendants' rights to ground water for new overlying uses for which the need had not yet come into existence during the prescriptive period." Los Angeles, page 293, fn. 100, italics in origi- nal. One court has since ruled that it was improper to limit the un- exercised rights of overlying users in a groundwater basin adjudication. Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74. This decision also holds that prescription does not run until the affected owner is "on notice" that the overdraft exists. Pasadena found that the long-term lowering of water levels was sufficient to charge owners with notice of a deficiency rather than a surplus. However, in Los Angeles v. San Fernando, the hydrologiC situation was more complex. During certain periods of time, the court found that a surplus existed, interrupting any prescriptive period. It may be only in similar circumstances that additional "notice" of overdraft is required. The classic definition of overdraft was modified to re- quire that extractions must exceed not only the safe yield of the basin but also "any temporary surplus." The Pasadena definition of safe yield was confirmed, namely, that it is the "maximum quantity of water which can he withdrawn annually... without causing an undesirable result." Los Angeles, pages 278, 280, 282. The court also reiterated the rule allowing the recapture of imported water, including the return flows from such deliveries, whether the water is sold for irrigation or urban uses. Imported water, and the return flows from imported water, must be separated from native waters in determining safe yield. Los Angeles pages 258-59, 288. Springs. A spring is defined as a damp, marshy area where under- ground waters seep to the surface as a stream or small pool. Harrison v. Chaboya (1926) 198 Cal. 473, 476; De Wolfskill v. Smith (1907) 5 Cal.App. 175, 181. Rights in spring waters are considered rights in real property. Stepp v. Williams (1921) 52 Cal.App. 237, Chapter 2 Water Rights in California 55