OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA 685 well except for a beneficial use for irrigation, domestic purposes, or propaga- tion of fish.114 This ordinance was held to be not unreasonable. In answer to a contention of counsel, the court expressed its belief that while maintenance of duck ponds contributed to enjoyment of the owner of the hunting privilege, it could scarcely be contended that this use of the water well was beneficial to the land. Exercise of Ground Water Rights Storage of Water in the Ground The California Water Code provides that the storing of water in the ground, including diversion of streams and flowing of water on lands necessary to accomplish storage, constitutes a beneficial use if the water so stored is there- after applied to the beneficial purposes for which the appropriation for storage was made.115 This handling of the water diverted for this purpose is known as "water spreading." Substitution of Water and Physical Solution In some of the ground water cases the courts have issued injunctions against excessive takings of the water, to the injury of other claimants, conditioned upon the failure of the party so restrained to restore to the injured party, by some equitable and suitable arrangement, water in the quantity and quality to which he is entitled.116 The principle of physical solutions in the settlement of water controversies, in furtherance of more complete utilization of the State's water resources, has engaged the attention of the California courts in a number of ground water cases decided since adoption of the policy of reasonable beneficial use in the California constitutional amendment of 1928.117 That the idea of physical solution was not altogether new when this new State water policy was adopted, however, is shown by the 1904 and 1927 court decisions discussed above.118 In its first comprehensive interpretation of the constitutional amendment, the principle of physical solutions was approved and adopted by the California Supreme Court. If the trial court could find a physical solution which would minimize or eliminate damages to landowners by reason of the defendant's project, then in lieu of damages it should prescribe such solution and direct the defendant city to provide and maintain it permanently at its own expense, and 114219Cal. at 424-426. 115Cal. Water Code § 1242 (West 1956). ll6Montecito Valley Water Co. v. Santa Barbara, 144 Cal. 578, 592, 602, 77 Pac. 1113 (1904); Eckel v. Springfield Tunnel & Dev. Co., 87 Cal. App. 617, 625, 262 Pac. 425 (1927). 11'Such cases involving ground waters, surface watercourses, or both, are discussed in chapter 15 at notes 402-413. Regarding the 1928 amendment, see "Effect of Constitutional Amendment of 1928," supra. 118 See note 116 supra. |