OCR Text |
Show REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT 247 The principle that a trial court, in an action to adjudicate water rights, may retain continuing jurisdiction in order to modify its decrees as occasion may require, is well established in California. "The retention of jurisdiction to meet future problems and changing conditions is recognized as an appropriate method of carrying out the policy of the state to utilize all water available."262 The topics of declaratory decree and reservation of continuing jurisdiction are further discussed in chapter 15,263 which deals with the related subject of adjudication of water rights. A suit to adjudicate water rights contemplates the establishment of and quieting title to the right. Some court actions to quiet title have been discussed earlier in this chapter264 and in chapter 5.265 Reverse or Inverse Condemnation (1) "Reverse condemnation" and "inverse condemnation," interchangeable terms, appear in a number of California water decisions. They ordinarily signify a proceeding to fix damages for the taking of property after intervention of public use by an entity which has, but has not exercised, the power of eminent domain for such purpose. In such a case, an injunction may have issued to prevent such taking without eminent domain proceedings, but such an injunction was not requested before the taking and the aggrieved party now seeks damages after the taking. The terms mean that the converting of a suit of different nature into one of eminent domain amounts to reverse or inverse condemnation.266 It was explained in a California case that "This cause is in effect the reverse of a condemnation proceeding-a proceeding to fix damages after the taking and not before the taking of the property as enjoined by the Constitution."267 (2) Collier v. Merced Irrigation District, just cited, was an action brought by a downstream riparian owner against an irrigation district which held an 262Pasadena v.Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 937-938, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). 263 See the subtopics "Jurisdiction-Reservation of Continuing Jurisdiction" and "Judg- ments and Decrees-Declaratory Decree" under "Some General Procedural Matters in Water Rights Litigation." 264 See, e.g., the discussion at notes 141-143 supra. 265 See "Water Rights-Appropriative Right-Real Property: The General Rule-Quiet title actions." ™Crum v.Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 124 Cal. App. 90, 92, 12 Pac. (2d) 134 (1932). ^Collier v. Merced In. Dist, 213 Cal. 554, 563, 2 Pac. (2d) 790 (1931). The court said that "in view of the fact that the property has already in effect been taken, the question of the validity of this section does not arise." There was "no objection to respondent here, who has the right to invoke the power of eminent domain, tendering- the issue by answer or cross-complaint of its own claims to the property and after these were settled to allow the action to be tried as if in an eminent domain proceeding." The court held that any right to previously enjoin the public use had been barred by laches. 2 Pac. (2d) at 794. See also the discussion of this case at note 159 supra, regarding the determination of damages. |