|
<br />QOC22.U
<br />
<br />..
<br />:;:
<br />
<br />_'\- ..-),..;:,,~.t.
<br />.j.... ' ~
<br />.....~ ~--.... .
<br />
<br />.......
<br />
<br />. ;~'
<br />
<br />SANTA MARGARITA WATER RIGHTS CONTROVERSY, CALIFORNIA 7
<br />
<br />1951. in t.he case of.the United Stat~s oj America. Y. the Fallbrook Public
<br />Utility DistriCt, et al. .
<br />
<br />TWO BASIC QUESTIONS
<br />
<br />At the opening of 'the hearing, the chairman sta.ted two basic
<br />questions wbich he hoped the hearings would answer.
<br />The first was the reason and the necessity for a suit of this magnitude
<br />inyolving as it did between 10,000 and 14,000 defendants. Nothing
<br />whICh deyeloped in the hearings indicated the necessity or any good
<br />rer.';;on for bringing it suit lll,"olving thollsaIHls of slnaU defendants
<br />with trifling or nonexistent water claims. Ninety percent of the
<br />water in the Santa Margarita River is used by less than 10 percent of
<br />the users. Consequently, it would be possiblc to get a practical
<br />definition of the water rights on the river by suing the 10 perce.nt
<br />using 90 percent of I.he water. SuinO" the thousands of small defend-
<br />ants as the Government has done in this instance may give a technical
<br />and encyclopedic definition of the water rights. But, such a definition
<br />is of no practical value for the reason that not more than 90 percent
<br />of the flow in the watershed can be controlled anyway. The losses
<br />in a stream from transpiration, evaporation, and casual and insig-
<br />nificant diversions ordinarily amount to more than 10 percent. There-
<br />fore, no useful purpose is served by securing a legal and encyclopedic
<br />definition of water rights down to the last bucketful. It can be con-
<br />cluded, then, that the legal theorists in the Attorney General's Office
<br />have unnecessarily put the Federal taxpayers to great expense and
<br />the local people to great provocation and legal expense for no practical
<br />reason whatever.
<br />The second question stated by the chairman at the commencement
<br />of the hearing is whether or not t.be Federal Government asserts some
<br />right or claim in its sovereign capacity which could not be asserted
<br />by a private holder of tbe same purchase documents. It appears
<br />from the testimony that the Government is standing on its purchase
<br />documents, plus the stipulated judgment between the Vails and the
<br />O'Neills. The pleadings filed by the Government are subject to the
<br />interpret.ation that it, asserts some claims in its sovereign capacity
<br />and for defense purposes, although tllis has becn denied by tho Gov-
<br />ermnent's attorneys. The. Government apparently takes the posi-
<br />tion that the stipulated judgment between the Vails and the O'Neills
<br />divided the river and that the judgment was binding on everyone on
<br />. the watershed even though other users on the river were not parties
<br />to the litigation. This is a novel legal theory, to say the least, but
<br />it would seem to indicate that the Federal Government is not assert-
<br />ing a higher position than a private holder of the same purchase
<br />documents could assert.. However, it. might be well to point out
<br />that ill the testimony before the Judiciary Subcommittee of the
<br />HOllse, the representatives of the Attorney General's Office indicated
<br />that they wouldllssert the Federal Government's sovereignty llgainst
<br />any claim of prescriptive use of water which might impair the Gov-
<br />ernment's rights under its purchase documents. If this position is
<br />sustained by the court! a Federal agency on a.ny stream in California
<br />will to that extent become a preferential nse.r of water with prefer-
<br />ential rights not subject to impairnlent by prescriptive use of water
<br />by others.
<br />
<br />
<br />',. .'. .
<br />..::.::-.:.-.;'-"
<br />:;;..........:.
<br />
<br />" .
<br />
<br />.,'.
<br />,." '.'
<br />
<br />',.'
<br />
<br />
<br />. "'J
<br />
<br />.,
<br />:J ..). <.:.,~;~:.:~:/ ~.
<br />
<br />'.:- ....
<br />.: :.o':.~~;..~:\::~: ~""~
<br />
<br />,.......
<br />
<br />"'. ...~.. .:.~'~..-:
<br />- . ','.
<br />.....,.
<br />",'.
<br />
<br />.-:1
<br />
<br />.,' -.. '.' ...:';' .'
<br />.... . ~ - ~.. ~ \:'~'..: ";,. '..~~..:;...~'\::.>.-:;;'.....~:,~~~.~~.;.'.:,?;..:.';.;:....::.:~... \.~ .~.: ;:,-::.:
<br />;::,t~{.~i.;~j.~{(::;;;/>;:i:;~i:;:.,>>~;>< "\.;' ; ;;.':
<br />
<br />"., .... .~.:.. .... ..~::..::':..;.:'.,~....,-:' >. ~:: :.".. -' ..,
<br />... ..... ':. .-.:..-:.,{.:::.'
<br />
<br />",'
<br />
<br />~-. . ....;..-.
<br />
<br />.'-.,
<br />
<br />:": '-", ,<
<br />
<br />..~ ."
<br />
<br />.......
<br />
<br />.'.-
<br />.~':'\':
<br />
<br />.: ':':~~ :.;.<
<br />
<br />. ',.,
<br />
<br />::. . .>.:.
<br />
<br />".,' ",'" . .... .. '. ~ ' ....
<br />".{<<. .,;,..;,t":,i >,' ".:,,';
<br />...,..'.....:.::' .",.' ..;..-.:.-.",:.;:~~.~.: :.'~::.' ';' ..;':. . .... . '..', . .' .. ..
<br />~. \ '. :~.::).:;~>:~_.:.::>> ~:.
<br />.' '.' ',: :,' ";"I...;'j:~, ..
<br />. .... .
<br />.,,; .' 'r~" ."# , ,.-~, ':>~~_~:': ;t.:'~
<br />"';': :';~; ~~:-L.~:~>,."}' "_..' .
<br />.' . ,'. .... ..:.:-.,:~.,t.~:~:~ :~~ .~
<br />
<br />:"; :.~,:;~:;~:.~:::~::~;~.C~.:;~ !
<br />, '..>--'.~'"
<br />';'.. ,,~,...:'<';;:; \.:;: .' <....,~....:~:. :~:'~?~; :~. ~:': '.~'
<br />. '., .. ... . :,_": '/:' . ~ ~";.' ?".
<br />
<br />. ~ .,.~.,..
<br />
<br />/ '
<br />
<br />'..1'
<br />
<br />.^ ,.
<br />":\-::~"
<br />
<br />'.'-. t.
<br />
<br />.",
<br />
<br />,.,'
<br />.,
<br />
<br />.' "".' e_
<br />....:,.
<br />
<br />._J.
<br />
<br />.t...
<br />
<br />
<br />.-.....
<br />
<br />
|