OCR Text |
Show We hold, therefore, that prescriptive rights were established by appropriations made in the Western Unit subsequent to the commencement of the overdraft, that such rights were acquired against both overlying owners and prior appropriators, that the overlying owners and prior appropriators also obtained, or preserved, rights by reason of the water which they pumped, and that the trial court properly concluded that the production of water in the unit should be limited by a proportionate reduction in the amount which each party had taken throughout the statutory period. [Pp. 31-33.] In brief, the principles set forth by the California courts in the cases just discussed, which did not involve public lands, are as follows: Percolating water is, first, subject to the needs, both present and prospective, of overlying landowners whose rights therein are correlative and proportionate. The right of an overlying landowner is not to a definite quantity of water but only to a proportionate share, with other overlying landowners, of such percolating water as he can put to a reasonable beneficial use on the overlying land. Only that portion of percolating water surplus to the needs of overlying landowners in a basin may legally be appropriated and then only for nonoverlying uses. While an appropriator of surplus water may use the water as long as it is not being used by the overlying landowners, he acquires no right to the continued use of *[66] the surplus except as against subsequent appropriators. His 111-33 |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |