OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA 687 Method of diversion.-]n a case decided after the Katz case,125 an appropri- ator changed the means of diverting percolating water from open cuts to wells. Said the California Supreme Court, "It is at least doubtful if the wells of this defendant affect the water in his land, but conceding that they do diminish his supply and that of some other of the plaintiffs, they cannot complain of the action of this defendant in simply adopting different means of collecting the water to which it had by means of long use acquired an undoubted right."126 In its "concession," the court's failure to recognize that a diminution of one's water supply is an injury weakens its conclusion that the plaintiffs "cannot complain." The assertion that defendant "by means of long use acquired an undoubted right" does not remedy the situation. That the diminution of one's water supply by another is an injury is inescapable. The "doubt" expressed in the first clause of the statement is effectively submerged by the conclusion that follows. That an injury is not compensable runs counter to many succeeding pertinent California decisions, both before and after adoption of the constitu- tional amendment of 1928, discussed earlier under "Effect of Constitutional Amendment of 1928." Place of use and purpose of use.-In its decisions, the California Supreme Court has not only applied the long-established rule with respect to waters of surface streams (as noted above) to changes in the point of diversion of appro- priated percolating waters, but it has also recognized, at least by implication, similar applicability of the rules with respect to changes in the place and purpose of use of appropriated waters generally.127 Some Miscellaneous Statutory Provisions Some Statutes Regarding Protection of Water Quality (1) After notice and hearing, the State Water Resources Control Board may file an action in court, or intervene in pending or continuing adjudication proceedings in court, to restrict pumping or to impose physical solutions, or both, to the extent necessary to prevent destruction of or irreparable injury to the quality of ground water. If the Board decides that ground water rights should be adjudicated for such purpose, it shall first give any local public agency in the affected area 90 days to bring such action before initiating such action itself.128 (2) Any person who intends to install, deepen, reperforate, abandon, or destroy a water well or cathodic protection well, shall file a notice of intent to so act with the Department of Water Resources.129 A report of completion of l2SKatz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 70 Pac. 633 (1902), 70 Pac. 766 (1903). 126Barton v. Riverside Water Co., 155 Cal. 509, 518, 101 Pac. 790 (1909). 127San Bernardino v. Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 29, 198 Pac. 784 (1921). 128Cal. Water Code § § 2100-2102 (West Supp. 1970). 129Id. § 13750. If immediate action must be taken in order to prevent damage to persons |