Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139100
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:46:25+00:00

Document:
718 of artesian areas not shown to be parts of definite underground streams. After the rendition of several decisions following or at least favoring the English rule of absolute ownership of percolating waters, the supreme court in 1903, in Katz v. Walkinshaw/0 discarded that principle and applied what has come to be known as the California doctrine of cor- relative rights. The controversy in question involved the relative rights of owners of land overlying a common artesian belt, the water of which was found to be broadly diffused, not part of a definite underground watercourse, and hence subject to the laws applicable to percolating waters. The new rule accorded to the owners of lands overlying the common supply equal rights for use on or in connection with their over- lying lands, each to have a fair and just proportion in cases in which the supply should be not sufficient for all. The landowner's right ex- tends only to the quantity of water necessary for use on his land, and any surplus that exists may be appropriated for distant use. Subsequent decisions have followed the rules suggested in Katz v. Walkinshaw, which were summarized in the syllabus of a case decided several years later.41 It should be noted at this point, as indicated hereinafter, that there is no statutory procedure applicable to the appropriation of sur- plus percolating water. Such appropriations are effected as the result of diversion and use of the water. As a result of appellate court decisions during the past half-century, and of noninterference by the Legislature, the correlative doctrine ap- pears to be firmly established as the law of percolating waters in Cali- fornia. The supreme court as recently as 1949, in Pasadena v. Alham- bra*2 made the following comments: "Generally speaking, an overlying right, analogous to that of a riparian owner in a surface stream, is the right of the owner of the land to take water from the ground underneath for use on his land within the basin or watershed; the right is based on ownership of the land and is appurtenant thereto. * * * Although the law at one time was otherwise, it is now clear that an overlying owner or any other person having a legal right to surface or ground water may "Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Calif.-116, 128-137, 70 Pac. 663 (1902), 74 Pac. 766 (1903). a Burr v. Maclay Rancho Water Co., 154 Calif. 428, 98 Pac. 260 (1908). For various points involved in applying the doctrine, see Cohen v. La Canada Land & Water Co., 142 Calif. 437, 439-440, 76 Pac. 47 (1904); Newport v. Temescal Water Co., 149 Calif. 531, 537-539, 87 Pac. 372 (1906); Barton v. Riverside Water Co., 155 Calif. 509, 516-519, 101 Pac. 790 (1909); Hudson v. Dailey, 156 Calif. 617, 625-628, 105 Pac. 748 (1909); Corona Foothill Lemon Co. v. Lillibridge, 8 Calif. (2d) 522, 530-532, 66 Pac. (2d) 443 (1937); Hillside Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 10 Calif. (2d) 677, 685-688, 76 Pac. (2d) 681 (1938). ° Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Calif. (2d) 908, 925-926, 928-933, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949); cert, den., California-Michigan Land & Water Co. v. Pasadena, 70S. Ct. 671 (1950).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.