PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Prescriptive rights are measured by the highest amount o/water used continuously 01)er a five-year period. 58 CALIFORNIA WATER continuous and uninterrupted for a period of five years (Code Civ. Proc. ~ 318), exclusive and under claim of right. Saxon v. DuBois (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 713, 719. Extent of Right. An adverse user may acquire all or part of an existing water right, but need not prescribe the entire flow of a watercourse to gain title. A prescriptive right is usufructuary and applies only to waters actually taken into possession and put to reasonable and beneficial use. A prescriptive right cannot attach to waters that are merely diverted but not used. Pabst v. Finmand (1922) 190 Cal. 124, 133, 135. The rigbt is measured by the extent and manner of use at the time the right accrued and entitles the prescriber to use the water for a specific purpose and in a specific quantity. When use levels vary over the course of the prescriptive period, the qnantity of prescripted water is measured by the highest maximum level used consistently over the five-year period. For example, if the use consisted of 25 acre-feet in the first year, 50 in the second, 100 in the third, and 150 in the fourth and fiftb, the adverse user would gain title only to 25 acre-feet, the highest amount consistently used. Having obtained the right to a specific quantity of water, the adverse user has no right to increase this amount for future uses. San Bernardino v. Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7, 25, 31. A prescriptive right may be forfeited if the water is not put to reasonable and beneficial use for five years. Garbarino v. Noce (1919) 181 Cal. 125, 130. Under Water Code ~ 1241, rights over waters subject to appropriation may be lost if not used for five years. The statute was amended in 1980 to extend the period of nonuse from three to five years, incidentally coinciding with the five-year statute of limitations for prescription. Stats. 1980, c. 933, p. 2955, ~ 5, Stats.1980, c. 1100, p. 3532, ~ 1, elf. Sept. 26, 1980. In the case of People v. Shirokow (1980) 26 Cal.3d 301, the California Supreme Court rejected the claim of a prescriptive right raised against the state by a property owner who had impounded water behind a dam without obtaining an appropriative permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The court held that the statutory permit procedures of the Water Code form the exclusive method for obtaining the right to appropriate water. Shirokow. pages 306, 309. The court went on to restate the principle that pub- lic rights cannot be lost by prescription, ruling that the impounded waters were property held in trust for the people by the state. Shirokow. page 311.