OCR Text |
Show 676 GROUND WATER RIGHTS IN SELECTED STATES extent those rights were invaded throughout the statutory periods for acquiring prescriptive rights. But by their own acts in continuing to pump water, these original holders of water rights either retained or acquired rights to continue to take some water in the future. Hence the prescriptive rights acquired against them were limited to the extent that the original owners retained or acquired rights by their pumping. The supreme court considered it unnecessary to determine, for the purpose of this adjudication, whether the overlying owners "retained simply a part of their original overlying rights or whether they obtained new prescriptive rights to use water." All parties were restricted to a proportionate reduction in the quantities of water they had been pumping, the total annual pumpage from the basin being limited to the safe yield. Mutual prescription: A troublesome, controversial concept.-(I) Erroneous use of words. Certain writers have used the term "mutual prescription" and have cited the California Supreme Court's decision in the Pasadena case as their authority. This is incorrect. It is true that a new principle was added to the long established correlative doctrine in California-that the production of water in the unit should be limited by a proportionate reduction in the quantity of water each party had taken throughout the statutory period. In other words, it was a successful effort to spread the production and use of water among all users in proportion to their several takings, an application of equitable principles to an unusual and difficult situation. Obviously, however, this bore no relation to so-called "mutual prescripton." (2) A concept not adopted in California water rights law.64 In Pasadena v. Alhambra,65 which dealt with the determination of rights in ground waters only, a new dimension was added to the established doctrine of correlative rights in California. The parties to the action included overlying landowners and appropriators. A number of the appropriators were public service companies and/or persons who planned to use the appropriated waters at great distances from the Raymond Basin, the source of the ground waters. A number of relatively small users were not made parties to the litigation, but the court concluded that it would not have been practical to make a determination of the issues if jurisdiction to allocate the limited supplies of ground water was dependent upon the joinder of every person having some real or potential interest in the Raymond Basin. The court accordingly indicated that those not joined as parties to the litigation were not bound by the judgment nor by any decree which the court might enter.66 Pursuant to statutory authority, the trial court referred the controversy to the State Department of Public Works for a determination of the facts.67 The 64This subsection was prepared by John Lowell Fruth, who assisted the author in work on State water rights laws while a law student in his last year at the University of California. The author is in full accord with Mr. Fruth's statements and conclusions. 65Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). 66 33 Cal. (2d) at 919-920. "Cal. Water Code §§ 2000 to 2050 (West 1956). The State Water Rights Board |