| OCR Text |
Show PUEBLO WATER RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA 149 already accrued under a former sovereignty."15 And so it follows that "the extent of the riparian rights belonging to pueblos or persons receiving such patents are matters of local or general law." Questions as to the nature and extent of water rights claimed by holders of United States patents based upon Spanish and Mexican grants are necessarily questions of State or general law. Extent of the Pueblo Water Right Needs of Inhabitants of City Full extent of needs of inhabitants.-In its first decision respecting the pueblo water right, the California Supreme Court held that the City of Los Angeles had the paramount right to the use of the waters of Los Angeles River "to the extent of the needs of its inhabitants, * * * and the further right, long exercised and recognized, * * * to manage and control the said waters for those purposes."16 The right extends only to the amount of water needed to supply the wants of the city's inhabitants,17 "for the pueblo right has always been measured, and therefore circumscribed, by the needs of the city."18 Grows with needs of expanding city. -Not only are the inhabitants of the area constituting the old pueblo entitled to enjoy the full pueblo right, but the right grows both with the number of inhabitants to whatever extent increased, and with the extension of the city limits by the annexation of land not within the limits of the original pueblo.19 The right extends to so much of the waters of the stream "as the expanding needs of such city" require,20 and "thus insures a water supply for an expanding city."21 lsLos Angeles Farming & Mill. Co. v. Los Angeles, 217 U.S. 217, 233, 234 (1910), dismissing writ of error to California Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction, 152 Cal. 645,93 Pac. 869, 1135 (1908). The Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631, ch. 41, provided for the ascertainment and settlement of the land claims derived from Spain or Mexico in the State of California; created a board of land commissioners for that purpose; provided that all lands, claim to which was rejected or not presented to the board, should be held a part of the public domain of the United States; provided that claims of towns or cities should be presented under that act; and provided that decrees and patents issued under that act should be conclusive between the United States and the claimant. 16Feliz v. Los Angeles, 58 Cal. 73, 80 (1881). See San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 152,164-165, 287 Pac. 496 (1930). 17 Vernon In. Co. v. Los Angeles, 106 Cal. 237, 250-251, 39 Pac. 762 (1895). "Los Angeles v. Glendale, 23 Cal. (2d) 68, 74-75, 142 Pac. (2d) 289 (1943). 19Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597, 649-650, 57 Pac. 585 (1899); Los Angeles v. Hunter, 156 Cal. 603, 608-609, 105 Pac. 755 (1909). i0San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 152, 164, 287 Pac. 496 (1930). 21 Los Angeles v. Glendale, 23 Cal. (2d) 68, 75,142 Pac. (2d) 289 (1943). |
