OCR Text |
Show 150 CALIFORNIA waters. The first two of these classes are subject to the same law as is surface water, so the material question is whether the waters at issue are percolating. The law offers assistance in this regard, since there is a presumption that any underground water is per- colating.203 Proof must be made that the underground waters are part of the body or flow of any stream, surface or subsurface, to rebut the presumption. Underground water may also mean water stored underground, since storage was recognized as a beneficial use by the legislature in 1919.204 Los Angeles has made much avail of this use.205 (2) The correlative use doctrine Prior to the leading case of Katz v. Walkinshaw,206 California courts applied the common law doctrine of absolute ownership which permitted overlying landowners to make full use of percolating waters without regard to other landowners. In Katz, the State Su- preme Court adopted the rule of correlative use which gives all overlying owners common rights to percolating waters beneath their lands. When the supply is sufficient, each owner withdraws water to meet his needs, but in time of shortage, each owner is limited to the reasonable quantity of water needed to meet his beneficial needs subject to similar and equal rights of all other overlying owners.207 Only if there is enough water to meet the needs of all overlying owners may underground water be exported outside the basin of origin.208 The correlative right to use underground water is very similar to, but should be differentiated from, the riparian right to use sur- face waters. The correlative right is part and parcel of the land,209 and the right is not dependent on use,210 but the difference is that the right of an overlying owner is an appurtenance to the land in all cases.211 The right to use percolating water is a private right as opposed to a public right, so a city can withdraw percolating water under- lying property within city limits only where it obtains legal title to the land itself.212 As with other water rights, rights to use percolating waters are subject to the doctrine of waste, and diversion methods of uses which are wasteful may be penalized.213 The legislature has provided for statutory regulation of the use of underground waters.214 It is a misdemeanor when a well owner permits the wastful escape of water from his artesian well. 203 Arroyo Ditch and Water Co. v. Baldwin, 155 C. 280, 100 P. 874 (1909). 20i See Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 C. 597, 57 P. 585, error dismd 188 U.S. 314 ; and W.C., sees. 60221 and 60230. 203 See 51 Cal. Jur. 2d 857, Waters sec. 389. Los Angeles v. Olendale, 23 C. 2d 68, 76, 142 P. 2d 289 (1943). *>«141 C. 116, 70 P. 663, 74 P. 766 (1903). 207 Pasadena 1. Alhambra, supra, note 7, p. 30, at 926. 208 Kate v. WalJcinshaw, supra, note 6, p. 32. 2«> Hillside Water Go. v. Los Angeles, 10 C. 2d 677, 686, 76 P. 2d 681 (1938). ™ Hudson v. Dailey, 156 C. 617, 105 P. 748 (1909). 211 Pasadena v. Alhamora, supra, note 7, p. 30, at 925. 2ia See 51 Cal. Jur. 2d 869, waters sec. 399 citing San Bernadino v. Riverside, 186 C. 7, 24, 198 P. 784 (1921). 2i3Ex parte Elam, 6 Cal. app. 233, 91 P. 811 (1907). «*W.C, sees. 300-311. |