Opinion ID: 1170215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Pueblo Right

Text: The findings of the trial court stated that [m]any cases have held that plaintiff succeeded to the pueblo water right, defined as a prior and paramount right to all the waters of the Los Angeles River so [ sic ] far as is reasonably necessary for the needs of the pueblo and its inhabitants. It was found, however, that the judgment rolls, appeal transcripts, and briefs from these cases which were introduced into evidence at the trial support the defendants' claim that the so-called `pueblo water right' had no support in Spanish or Mexican law and that its statement in some of the cases was based solely upon erroneous translations, incomplete and inaccurate citations, and unsupportable conclusions drawn therefrom. The findings listed 11 civil actions, all reviewed by this court, involving plaintiff's rights to take waters of the Los Angeles River. It was found that in the three earliest of these cases we did not rule on the pueblo water right. A lengthy finding on the fourth case ( Vernon Irrigation Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1895) 106 Cal. 237 [39 P. 762]) described numerous errors and omissions in the record and in plaintiff's brief in that case. The subsequent seven cases were distinguished as not involving the kind of injunction requested here and four of them (including the actions against Glendale and Burbank, affirmed in Glendale, supra, 23 Cal.2d 68) were found to have enunciated the pueblo water right principle by reason of stare decisis. Another finding referred to all seven of these cases as having followed Vernon.  The court also found that the 1943 decision against Glendale and Burbank in Glendale is not res judicata in this case because (1) there have been subsequent changes in factual circumstances and in the law applicable to relative rights in underground water supplies, [6] (2) great public interests are involved and application of res judicata would defeat the ends of justice, and (3) the res judicata objective of preventing vexatious litigation cannot be accomplished by reason of the time and expense already spent in litigating the issues. The court further found that the doctrine of stare decisis does not require it to recognize plaintiff's pueblo right against any defendant for the following reasons: (1) There is no precedent case on the pueblo right on which the court can completely rely to fix the parties' rights here; (2) to follow the prior cases would be unsound and unjust and would drastically affect thousands of people; (3) to follow the prior cases would be contrary to the principles announced in Pasadena; [7] (4) the prior cases were wrongly decided in that: (a) none of them refers to any Spanish or Mexican law that used the words pueblo water right or their equivalent; (b) the pueblo water right doctrine was never substantially tested by an adversary trial court proceeding with expert testimony on Spanish and Mexican law; (c) the reasons for a pueblo water right stated in Lux [8] and Vernon were clearly and unequivocally wrong; (d) the remaining cases followed Vernon, and to apply them here would be unsound and unjust. The trial court then found that it was required to examine Spanish and Mexican law pertaining to the pueblo water right because of uncertainties in the prior cases, vast changes in circumstances since they were decided, the inclusion in the present case of parties and areas not previously involved in similar litigation and the allegation in plaintiff's complaint that its rights are based on Spanish and Mexican law. The trial court made extensive findings on the Spanish settlement of California and particularly the Pueblo of Los Angeles, Mission San Fernando, and the ranchos in the ULARA. It was found that the dominant institutions were not the pueblos but the presidios and missions which were planned as the nuclei of future cities, that the purpose of the pueblo was to help supply the agricultural needs of the presidios, and that the Pueblo of Los Angeles was under direct control of the Spanish royal government and never became an independent, self-governing entity during the Spanish period. Findings further described the Spanish-Mexican governmental and legal systems. Numerous additional findings were made to the effect that under Spanish-Mexican law river waters were to be shared and used by all persons subject to the king's authority to apportion water equitably in times of shortage. It was found that the sovereign could grant specific quantities of river waters for irrigation subject to common usage for domestic needs and subject to governmental authority to apportion in time of shortage. It was also found that a pueblo's rights to take river water for municipal purposes were equivalent to the rights of individuals, that a pueblo could not go outside its boundaries to take water for its inhabitants in the absence of an express grant and that the Pueblo of Los Angeles had no such grant. In addition there were numerous findings negating the existence of various forms of pueblo water rights under Spanish-Mexican law. It was also found that the Spanish-Mexican law governing well and spring water was different from such law governing river water, that all landowners had a right to take and use water from wells and springs on their lands as long as they did not harm their neighbors with malice or intent to cause harm, that the parties to the present action are extracting only well and spring water (as distinct from river water) from the ULARA, that each of the defendants owns land with wells located thereon as successor in interest to owners who enjoyed these well water rights under Spanish and Mexican law, and that well water rights constitute a limitation on the Pueblo of Los Angeles' rights to take and use waters of the Los Angeles River. The court further made findings on the sources of water supply available to plaintiff in addition to ground water extracted from the ULARA. These sources are the water imported from Inyo and Mono Counties (also called Owens water), ground water from the West Basin and Central Basin of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain and imported MWD water. The court found that water from these sources is sufficient to satisfy plaintiff's needs through the year 2020 even if plaintiff were to take no further water from the Los Angeles River or the ULARA. [9]