OCR Text |
Show Chapter 5. CALIFORNIA CONTENTS Page 1. Development of California Water Law____________________________ 129 2. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control__ 130 2.1 Administration of Water Rights__________________________ 130 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts________________________ 133 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities-------- 136 3. Surface Waters_________________________________________________ 139 Method of Acquiring Rights_____________________________ 139 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights______________________________ 142 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers____________________________ 144 3.4 Loss of Rights_________________________________________ 146 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds________________ 148 3.6 Springs_______________________________________________ 148 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters_________________________________ 149 4. Ground Water__________________________________________________ 149 Publications Available_____________________________________________ 152 DISCUSSION 1. Development of California Water Law The development of California water law has been complicated by the concurrent existence of riparian and appropriation water rights doctrines. Adding to this complexity are Pueblo water rights, which originated in Spanish and Mexican law and which give prefer- ence to certain municipal rights.1 Riparian rights, as recognized by the common law of England, were accepted as part of the common law of California. However, many of the early cases involved conflicts between appropriators who claimed rights based on the customs of early miners on public lands.2 When claims of riparians and appropriators conflicted, ap- propriative rights were held to be superior to riparian claims of patentees who received patents after the appropriative use com- menced.3 The appropriation system was formally recognized by Congress on public lands by the act of 1866 and the amendment of 1870 4 and by the Desert Land Act of 1877,5 for those States (including California) where appropriative rights were recognized by State law. In the 1 Only Los Angeles and San Diego have established Pueblo rights. See Loa Angeles v. Glendale, 23C 2d 68, 142 P 2d 289 (1943) and San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 C. 152. 287 P. 496 (1930). Pueblo rights are discussed in Rogers and Nichols, "Water for California," Bancroft-Whitney, 1967, pp. 387-398, hereinafter cited as "Rogers and Nichols." a Bear River & Auburn Water & Min. Co. v. New York Min. Co., SC.327 (1857). 3 See discussion of Line v. Haggin, 69 C. 255. 4 P. 919 (1884) in Sec. 2.2, infra. * Act of July 26, 1886, 14 Stat. 251; act of July 9, 1970, 16 Stat. 217. 5 Mar. 3, 1877, ch. 107, 19 Stat. 377. The act was held to apply to all lands patented from the Federal domain in Calif .-Ore. Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S. 142 (1935). 129 |