OCR Text |
Show PUEBLO WATER RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA 151 surface, and in the ground, that flowed through the original pueblo.29 Generally superior to riparian rights of other landowners.-In Lux v.Haggin the California Supreme Court expressed its belief that a pueblo had a preference or prior right to consume the water of the stream even as against another riparian proprietor on the same stream, but considered it unnecessary to decide the question in this case inasmuch as no pueblo actually was involved.30 In subsequent cases this court held the pueblo right to be superior to riparian rights of other proprietors.31 Generally superior to appropriate rights.-The California Supreme Court has said that the pueblo water right of the City of Los Angeles is superior to the rights of appropriators on the stream.32 Any rights-of-way acquired under the Act of Congress of 1866 and the supplementary act of January 12,1891,33 were held to be subordinate to the vested rights of the City of San Diego derived from its succession to the pueblo of San Diego established under Mexican rule in 1834. This resulted from the fact that the Congressional acts were passed after the rights of San Diego had become vested.34 Not inconsistent with California Constitution.-The pueblo right, even though it includes a potentital right to waters not presently needed, is not 39Id.; San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 116, 122, 151, 287 Pac. 475 (1930); San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 152, 164-165, 287 Pac. 496 (1930); Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Farming & Mill. Co., 152 Cal. 645, 652-653, 93 Pac. 869, 1135 (1908); Feliz v. Los Angeles, 58 Cal. 73, 79-80 (1881). MLux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 331-332,4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886). 31 Vernon Irr. Co. v. Los Angeles, 106 Cal. 237, 250, 39 Pac. 762 (1895); Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Farming & Mill. Co., 152 Cal. 645, 651-652, 93 Pac. 869,1135 (1908);&m Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 152,164-165, 287 Pac. 496 (1930); Los Angeles v. Glendale, 23 Cal. (2d) 68, 73, 142 Pac. (2d) 289 (1943). See also San Diego v. Sloane, 272 Cal. App. (2d) 663, 77 Cal. Rptr. 620 (1969). In Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597, 641, 57 Pac. 585, 600-601 (1899), writ of error dismissed sub nom. Hooker v. Los Angeles, 188 U.S. 314 (1903), the California Supreme Court noted that the competing riparians held their lands "as successors to several Spanish and Mexican grantees, under patents from the United States based upon the original grants." The riparians argued that the Spanish and Mexican grants preceded establishment of the pueblo of Los Angeles but the court found the situation to be otherwise. The court thereby appears to have implied, but it was unnecessary to decide, that the pueblo right would not have been superior to the riparian right if the pueblo had not been established before the early Spanish and Mexican grants of the riparian lands. See also San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 287 Pac. 475,485-486 (1930). As discussed under "Question of Local Law," supra, interpretations of such Spanish and Mexican grants and associated pueblo or riparian rights are questions of local law. See especially the discussion at note 15 supra. 32Los Angeles v. Glendale, 23 Cal. (2d) 68, 73, 142 Pac. (2d) 289 (1943). See the preceding footnote regarding the city's pueblo right versus riparian rights. 3314 Stat. 253, ch. 262, § 9; 26 Stat. 714, ch. 65, § 8. "San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 131-132, 287 Pac. 475 (1930). |