OCR Text |
Show 686 GROUND WATER RIGHTS IN SELECTED STATES should enforce such requirements by prohibitory or mandatory injunction. The trial court had the power to do this, and should retain jurisdiction to modify its orders as occasion might demand.119 In another case, the California Supreme Court indicated that the constitu- tional amendment compels trial courts, before issuing a decree entailing great waste of water in order to safeguard a prior right to a small quantity of water, to ascertain whether there exists a physical solution of the problem that will avoid the waste and at the same time not unreasonably and adversely affect the property right of the paramount holder.120 The principle was implemented in this case by providing that the district had the duty to maintain the levels of plaintiffs wells above the danger level fixed by the trial court; that in event that the well levels reached the danger point, it was the district's duty either to supply water to the city or to raise the levels of the wells above the danger mark; and that in the event of noncompliance with the order within a reason- able time, an injunctive decree should go into effect.121 Diversion Facilities The particular means of diverting water from the ground is not an element of the right to make the diversion, unless the right is obtained by grant or contract. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, persons associated by agreement in the use of a conduit (including ditch, pipe line, and flume), well, or pumping plant for the handling of water, are liable to each other for the reasonable expenses of maintaining and repairing such works in proportion to the use actually made thereof.122 Changes in Exercise of Rights Point of diversion.-In an early case decided a few years after adoption of the correlative doctrine, it was held that the use of new pumping wells, by an appropriator of percolating water, to replace flowing wells (located in a dif- ferent part of the ground water area) which had failed, constituted a mere change of the place of diversion of the water without injury to others.123 Change in the place of taking the ground waters "becomes wrongful only in the event that others are injured thereby."124 119Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. (2d) 351, 379-380, 383-384, 40 Pac. (2d) 486 (1935). 120Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Util. Dist., 7 Cal. (2d) 316, 339-340, 60 Pac. (2d) 439 (1936). 121 This case involved an application of a physical solution in the coordination of rights in ground water and a surface watercourse. See the discussion at note 173 infra. 122Cal. Water Code § § 7000-7010 (West 1956). 123Barton v. Riverside Water Co., 155 Cal. 509, 517-518, 101 Pac. 790 (1909). 124San Bernardino v. Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 29, 198 Pac. 784 (1921). See Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Util. Dist., 7 Cal. (2d) 316, 340, 60 Pac. (2d) 439 (1936); VinelandIrr. Dist. v. Azusa Irrigating Co., 126 Cal. 486, 495-497, 58 Pac. 1057 (1899). |