OCR Text |
Show 514 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES determination that a conditional water right has become a water right by virtue of a completed appropriation.393 In every second calendar year following the year in which a conditional water right has been determined, the owner or user of the right, if he wishes to maintain the right, must obtain a finding by the referee of reasonable diligence in the development of the appropriation; failure to do so shall be considered an abandonment of the conditional water right.394 These conditional decrees and conditional water rights have been discussed previously under "Special Statutory Adjudication Procedures-Statutory Ad- judication Procedures in Selected States-Colorado."395 The California adjudi- cation statutes also include provisions with respect to the completion and eventual determination of incomplete appropriations.396 Declaratory Decree In California, when the riparian owner's right is prior and paramount to that of an appropriator, the riparian owner is entitled, in case of a mere technical and unsubstantial interference with his right, to a judgment declaring his right and enjoining the assertion of an adverse use which might otherwise ripen into a prescriptive right.397 The future or prospective reasonable beneficial uses of the riparian proprietor are likewise entitled to protection in a declaratory judgment and decree pending the time the owner actually needs the water in the exercise of his riparian right.398 In giving declaratory relief, the court has the powers of a court of equity.399 A Texas case in the United States Court of Appeals was held to be not a true class suit, so that a declaratory judgment would be binding on only those parties actually before the court. Every question of law presented was one of local State law, as to which the decisions of Texas State courts would be controlling as precedents.400 393Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-21-18(1) (Supp. 1969). 394Id. § 148-21-17(4). 395 See the discussion at notes 177-181 and 220 supra. 396 Cal. Water Code § 2801 et seq. (West 1956). 391Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. (2d) 351, 374, 382-383, 40 Pac. (2d) 486 (1935). Most California law with respect to conflicting riparian-appropriation interrelation- ships was made in controversies in which the riparian right was adjudged superior. Regarding differences, as against appropriative rights, that may arise due to the time that lands passed into private ownership, and related factors, see in chapter 6, "Interrelationships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States-California." 398Tulare In. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 525, 529-530, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935); Carlsbad Mut. Water Co. v. San LuisRey Dev. Co., 78 Cal. App. (2d) 900, 911-912, 178 Pac. (2d) 844 (1947). 399 Los Angeles v. Glejidale, 23 Cal. (2d) 68, 81,142 Pac. (2d) 289 (1943). 400Martinez v. Maverick County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 1, 219 Fed. (2d) 666, 672-673 (5th Cir. 1955). |