| OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF WATERCOURSE 75 which resulted in the stipulated "Gopcevic decree." This decree permanently enjoined the company from deepening the outlet excessively, fixed maximum and minimum lake levels, and placed restrictions on the rapidity with which the level might be reduced. All this was for the purpose of allowing the company to impound floodwaters and to withdraw them for irrigation downstream, while at the same time affording the protection of a fixed water level to Lakeport, the county seat, and to the owners of homes, farms, and resorts on the lake borders.276 The Gopcevic decree thus placed an effective legal limit upon the extent to which Clear Lake could be used as a storage reservoir for the service of downstream lands.277 Other surface sources.-The oft repeated statement that a watercourse usually discharges its flow into some other watercourse278 takes on special significance when one considers the structure of a surface stream system (see "Definition and General Description-The Surface Stream System," above), which comprises a main watercourse and its branches or tributaries of varying size, many of which are themselves classifiable as watercourses. Interconnection of watercourses and sloughs, and the legal implications thereof, have also been noted in various cases.279 The same comment applies to interconnection of a swamp or marsh with a river.280 Some springs contribute to the supply of watercourses, and others do not. The association between headsprings and watercourses has been noted above under "Source of Supply-Spring water." Ground waters.-A phenomenon of vital importance in the hydrology and water-rights jurisprudence of the West is the association of surface streams and ground waters, which together comprise most of the water to which rights of use attach. The physical interconnections are referred to in chapter 2 and under "Source of Supply-Percolating ground water," above. The legal implications are discussed later, in chapter 19. 276 The Gopcevic decree provided that a specified higher rise in level for specified time periods by reason of storm or flood conditions beyond control of the company should not be deemed a violation of the decree. A judgment against the company for contempt of court in allowing the lake level to remain above the maximum for a period longer than authorized by the decree was affirmed by the California District Court of Appeal; Clear Lake Water Co. v. Superior Court of Mendocino County, 33 Cal. App. (2d) 710, 92 Pac. (2d) 921 (1939). 277 An authoritative statement of the Clear Lake-Cache Creek relationship, based upon exhaustive research, is presented by More, Rosemary Macdonald, "The Influence of Water-rights Litigation upon Irrigation Farming in Yolo County, California," thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography, University of California (1960). 278 For example, Sierra County v. Nevada County, 155 Cal. 1, 8, 99 Pac. 371 (1908); Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 488,101 Pac. 1059 (1909). 279 See Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 87-88, 91-92, 99 Pac. 520 (1909); Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 92, 252 Pac. 607 (1926); Bachman v. Reynolds In. Dist., 56 Idaho 507,512, 55 Pac. (2d) 1314 (1936). 280 Hall v. Webb, 66 Cal. App. 416,420, 226 Pac. 403 (1924). |
