PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has interpreted "reasonable and beneficial use" to include periodic or seasonal storage (Moore v. California Oregon Power Co. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 725, 734-735; Colorado Power Co. v. Pacific Gas & Blec. Co. (1933) 218 Cal. 559, 564-566) as well as rental and sale. Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Blec. Co. (1929) 207 Cal. 8, 34. Open and notorious use. This requirement is intended to put the original owner on notice of an adverse claim. In order to satisfy this requirement, the claimant must show either that the owner had actual notice of the prescription or that the use was sufficiently open and notorious for the court to presume that the owner knew of its existence. Copeland v. Falrvlew Land & Water Co. (1913) 165 Cal. 148, 163-164. If it can be demonstrated that the owner had actual knowledge of an adverse claim, the claimant does not have to show that the use was open and notorious. Fogarty v. Fogarty (1900) 129 Cal. 46, 50. To demonstrate knowledge of an adverse claim, the claimant may impute the knowledge an agent sbared with the agent's principal. Montecito Valley, page 597. In Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal. 2d 908, overdraft was found to have commenced in 1913-14, and thereafter the progressive lowering of groundwater levels was held sufficient to put pumpers on notice that no surplus existed and that the appropriations causing the overdraft were invasions of the rights of overlying owners and prior appropriators. However, in City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fer- nando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, the Supreme Court held that to establish the required element of adversity pumpers must be on notice that an overdraft exists- Tbe findings that the takings from the basin were open and noto- rious and were continuously asserted to be adverse does not establish that the owners were on notice of adversity in/act caused by the actual commencement of overdraft. 14 Cal.3d, page 283. No case has since determined what may be required to put users on notice of an existing overdraft. The fact that surplus water temporarily existed may have influenced the Los Angeles decision. An open and notorious use cannot be concealed. Therefore the use of an underground pipeline has been held insufficient to satisfy this requirement. Powers v. Perry (1909) 12 Cal.App. 77, 83. Similarly, the construction of a diversion ditch does not qualify as open and notorious until the claimant actually uses it to divert the water. Senior v. Anderson (1896) 115 Cal. 496, 505-506. The courts have held that the use of the entire flow of a watercourse can con- stitute presumptive notice of an adverse claim unless the lower user 60 CALIFORKIA WATER