OCR Text |
Show 154 THE PUEBLO WATER RIGHT In three decisions, the United States Supreme Court refused to review questions as to the validity of the pueblo water right of Los Angeles and of claims derived from Spanish or Mexican grants in opposition thereto. Two of these cases went to the Supreme Court from the California Supreme Court.45 One was appealed from a Federal Court.46 In all three cases the Supreme Court held that these were questions of State or general law, not Federal questions. The pueblo water right of the City of San Diego was adjudicated by the California Supreme Court in two cases under the same title, decided on the same day.47 The court said that the subject of the pueblo right of a city that succeeded a Spanish or Mexican pueblo is no longer an open one for further consideration and review before this court, and that... the proposition that the prior and paramount right of such pueblos and their successors to the use of the waters of such rivers and streams necessary for their inhabitants and for ordinary municipal purposes, has long since become a rule of property in the state, which at this late date in the history and development of those municipalities which became the successors of such pueblos we are not permitted, under the rule of stare decisis, to disturb.48 49 The court also said, It follows from the law, as thus declared, that the City of San Diego, as plaintiff herein, as the successor of the pueblo of San Diego, has had at all times and still has a prior and paramount right to the use of the waters of the San Diego river particularly involved in the present discussion whenever, and to the extent that, the needs of the city and its inhabitants require such use. Glendale, 23 Cal. (2d) 68, 73-80, 142 Pac. (2d) 289 (1943). In opinions in several cases not involving questions of pueblo water rights, the Los Angeles pueblo water right is mentioned. Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 334, 88 Pac. 978 (1907); Fellows v. Los Angeles, 151 Cal. 52, 61, 90 Pac. 137 (1901);Miller \. Bay Cities Water Co., 157 Cal. 256, 287-288, 107 Pac. 115 (1910). 45Hooker v. Los Angeles, 188 U.S. 314 (1903), dismissing writ of error, Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597, 57 Pac. 585 (1899), Los Angeles Farming & Mill. Co. v. Los Angeles, 217 U.S. 217 (1910), dismissing writ of error, 152 Cal. 645, 93 Pac. 869,1135 (1908). "Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U.S. 313 (1906). 41San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 116, 122-132, 151, 287 Pac. 475 (1930); San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 152,164-165, 287 Pac. 496 (1930). See also San Diego v. Sloane, 272 Cal. App. (2d) 663, 77 Cal. Rptr. 620, 621-623 (1969). 48San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 122, 287 Pac. 475 (1930). 49 209 Cal. at 165. |