Imperial Valley press and the Imperial press., 1906-06-16
NO WATER RIGHTS

fore the state was organized as govern ment. In the light of the foregoing views, the provision of section ? that the right to collect compensation for the use of water cannot be exercised except by authority of and in the manner pre- scribed by law, means that if the legis- lature shall by statute prescribe the par ticular manner in which the right shall
 be Exercised, that manner eff it be req sonable) must be followed if consumers insist on it but, in the absence of such statute, then by authority oflaw' means by the authority of the general substan- tive law of the land in which all rights of property and it's use or enjoyment are founded. Our conclusion is that the contract involved in the case at bar is not made invalid by the provisions of the constitution invoked by appellants.
 The only act passed by the legislature touching the subject here under consid- eration which calls for special notice is the act of March 12, 1885 (Stats. 1885, p.95.) There was another act on the subject passed March 12, 1880 (Stats. 1880, D. 16;) but no action was taken under it, and it is very little discussed in the briefs of counsel. The later act of 1885 covers the subject, and super sedes most of the provisions of the act of 1880. In the act of 1885, the legisla- ture does not, itself, undertake to pre- scribe any law about compensation for water. 1t simply gives power of regula- tion to boards of supervisors in the event that they are petitioned to exercise such power by mot less than twenty-five inhabitants who are taxpayers, etc. Upon such petition the supervisors are authorized to fix and regulate the max imum rate at which any person, com pany,' etc. may sell, rent or distribute water. The board or boards of supervis- ors in the county or counties in which respondents ditches are situated have, however, never taken any action under the statute, no petition for such action having been presented, and therefore there are no regulations of said boards to be considered butappellants contend that respondents rights have been inn paired or destroyed by some general pro- visions of the act. This contention, however, cannot be maintained. The statute, even if it can be said to have any effect in the absence of any action by the supervisors, clearly contemplates only the fixing by the latter of maxi mum rates. Section of the act pro- vides that anyone selling water must do so at rates mot exceeding the established rate e;' and section 9 provides that any such person whose water rates 'have supervisors who shall collect water rates in excess eff such established rates shall be liable in an action for damages. There is nothing in the act making it il- legal to contract for less than the maxi mum rates. Appellants contend that the act has some significance notwith- ClIC ldCU uPOlNlSOic have not acted, because it is provided in section that until the supervisors shall have acted the actual rates established and collected by the water owners shall be deemed and accepted as the legally accepted rates This simply means that until compensation shall be fixed by the supervisors persons selling water shall continue to collect as they have been accustomed to do. It refers to things as they existed !; it is in the nature of recital it is certainly not conl- mand, as appellants seeui to think, that the persons or companies referred to must by resolution or declaration, or by something in the nature of an ordinance passed by the municipal body, formally announce the terms upon which they will continue to distribute water. But even appellants view is substantially met by the avermentin the complaint that respondent has been so engaged in conveying and furnishing water and charging and collecting therefor, partic- ularly under contracts similar in form and substance to those set forth; alleged and daocrihad in tbia oOnn1aint ' and