OCR Text |
Show 696 GROUND WATER RIGHTS IN SELECTED STATES from a watercourse, while entitled as before to have enough stream water released to satisfy his prior right, is nevertheless subject as against a junior appropriator of the water of the stream, to the rule of reasonableness in both his use of the water and his method of diversion.173 The junior appropriator must supply him a quantity of water equivalent to the quantity which he is entitled to withdraw from the ground for reasonable use under a reasonable method of diversion, in the exercise of a physical solution of the controversy.174 In default of the fulfillment of his obligation, the junior appropriator must release the necessary water into the ground to supply the prior appropriator's full right. But if at all possible, a physical solution must be found and applied by the court to avoid any substantial waste of water that might be attendant upon the artificial releasing of water into the ground. The constitutional amendment makes this necessary in the interest of conserving the water resources of the State. The result of the California decisions following the adoption of the correlative doctrine of percolating water rights and the constitutional amend- ment of 1928 has been a considerable degree of coordination of rights in ground waters and surface watercourses that constitute a common source of water supply. COLORADO Definite Underground Streams Waters of definite underground streams do not constitute percolating water within the meaning of the law. In a 1902 case, the Colorado Supreme Court indicated that underground streams which flow in well-defined and known channels and which can be traced were governed by the same rules of law as surface streams.175 In an 1882 case, it had indicated that the doctrine of prior appropriation applies to surface streams to the exclusion of the common law doctrine of riparian rights.176 Underflow or Subsurface Flow of Surface Stream The underflow (water saturating the sand and gravel constituting the bed of a channel and the sources of a stream) is as much a part of the watercourse as the surface flow itself.177 A party who seeks to divert water which reaches a 113Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Util. Dist., 7 Cal. (2d) 316, 337-343, 60 Pac. (2d) 439 (1936). 174 See the discussion at notes 120-121 supra. '^Medano Ditch Co. v. Adams, 29 Colo. 317, 68 Pac. 431 (1902). 176Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882). 171Buckers Irr. Mill & Improvement Co. v. Farmers' Independent Ditch Co., 31 Colo. 62, 72 Pac. 49(1902). |