OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA 671 Eastern States, which had departed from the English rule and had developed in place thereof the American rule of reasonable use, were cited or reviewed with approval. The new California rule was an outgrowth of the American rule of reasonable use in the East, but with some new features of considerable importance. Development of the correlative doctrine. -Development of the new Cali- fornia doctrine began with Katz v. Walkinshaw38 and continued in the numerous ground-water cases that succeeded it. There were two hearings in the Katz case; the first decision was rendered in 1902 and the second, on rehearing, in 1903. The supreme court adopted the "doctrine of reasonable use," but reference was also made in the opinion to "this rule of correlative rights," which became and remained the chosen designation. The opinion on rehearing went beyond the actual decision and included some observations on the making of "new applications of old principles to the new conditions." Largely dicta insofar as the issues of the Katz case were concerned, they have all become part of the correlative doctrine in California. This results from the repeated statement and restatement of principles in various decisions whether or not necessary thereto. It is safe to say that, on the whole, there has been enough factual basis for and enough reassertion of each important facet of the correlative doctrine, over a long enough period of time, to make each essential element of the doctrine an acknowledged rule of property in the State. Rights of overlying landowners as against each other. -Owners of lands overlying the same supply of percolating ground water have equal rights therein-correlative rights-for use on their overlying lands.39 Each right extends only to the reasonable use of the water for the benefit of the overlying land, in such quantity as is reasonably necessary, provided the supply is sufficient therefor. If not sufficient for all, each is entitled to a reasonable share.40 The overlying owner may make this reasonable use according to the custom of the locality.41 The fact that the water is moving through one's land to that of a neighbor, or that by making his proper use he may thereby prevent the water from entering his neighbor's land or may withdraw it therefrom is immaterial, provided that he conforms to the legal maxim Sic utere tuo ut alienum non ktedas-use your property so as not to injure that of others.42 38Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 70 Pac. 663 (1902), 74 Pac. 766 (1903). 39141 Cal. at 135-136, 70 Pac. 663 (1902), 74 Pac. 766 (1903); Burr v. Maclay Rancho Water Co., 160 Cal. 268, 273, 116 Pac. 715 (1911). A0Cohen v. La Canada Land & Water Co., 142 Cal. 437, 439-440, 76 Pac. 47 (1904); Corona Foothill Lemon Co. v. Lillibridge, 8 Cal. (2d) 522, 525, 66 Pac. (2d) 443 (1937); Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 925-926, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949); Hudson v. Dailey, 156 Cal. 617, 625-626,105 Pac. 748 (1909). 41 Allen v. California Water & Tel. Co., 29 Cal. (2d) 466, 484, 176 Pac. (2d) 8 (1946). "O'Leary v. Herbert, 5 Cal. (2d) 416, 422, 55 Pac. (2d) 834 (1936). See Cal. Civ. Code § 3514 (West 1970). |