WSP03867 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ~) :I.114iC . . The California statute ~overnlng court reference procedures for determination of w~ter rights provides that In specified counties, If after the administrative referee report has been filed It appears that unrestricted pl!mplng wIll induce ocean water intrusion to the I rrepa- . rable injury of t~e ground water supply before final judgment, the court ma)' Issue a prelimInary Injunction equitably restricting and apportio~ln9 reduction In pumping subject to adjustment and compensa- tion In the final judgment. The HawaII ground water u,e act I s an adllptetlcn of the "Mode I Water Us/! Act" prepared at the Legislative P.eseerch Center, University of Mlc.hlgan Law School. Withdrawal of water directly from a designated area in which regulation Is needed, except tor domestic use and pre- serve.;! uses, requires a permit for a specified period of years, which may be granted If ~ater Is aval 'able for beneficial use, water resources are not thereby Irn~alred, and no substantial Interference with existing uses 15 Indicated. If In such area a water short~ge occ.urs, new wells and uses may be f.,r~ldden, existing uses and facilities modified, and water uses apportioned, limited, or rotated. In the event of en emer- gency In a ground water area, the State administrative agency Is authorized to take extraordinary steps to cope with It whether or not the area Is designated. The QuestIon of dl1e process. - In States In which the principle that ground water belongs to the public, subject to appropriatIon, has judicial recognition as well as statutory approval, closing the area to further approprlstion In event of an overdraft Is compara~le to cloSing a surface stream the waters of which have been fully appropriated. As nobody has a right to appropriate water from a source all of which is needed to satisfy prior rights, an Is.ue of denIal of due process does not arise In denying new applications to appropriate water from the Insufficient supply. A different situation exists In a jurisdiction In whIch overlying landowners are held by the courts to have property rights In waters in their lands, where In case of overdraft the only uses of ground water that are protected are those then existing, and overlying landowners who hava not yet made such use are prohibited from doing so while the short- age persists. In such event, a judicial appraisal of statutory restric- tions on the exercise of recognIzed and declared property rights, to be favorable to Its validity, must draw a distinction between denial of due process and .exerclse of the State's pollee power. Finally, It Is Important to note In this connection that the validity of the Arizona restrictive act was sustained by the supreme court of that State. The court took the position that where the public Interest is significantly Involved, the preferment of such Interest over the private Interest of an Individual Is a distinguishing characteristic of exercise of the police power. Under the circumstances presented by a critically overdrawn water supply, the court could not say that Invoca- tion of the police power in administerIng the ground water act Involved a denIal of due process. [Southwest Enqlneerlnq Co. v. Ernst, 79 Ariz. 403. 291 Pac. (2d) 764 (1955).] - 13 -