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

Heading: Spreading of Imported Water by Plaintiff in San Fernando Basin

Text: (13) For some years plaintiff has maintained spreading grounds in the San Fernando basin on which from time to time it spreads imported Owens water for the purpose of replenishing the basin's ground supply. In City of L.A. v. City of Glendale, supra, 23 Cal.2d at pages 76-77, plaintiff was held to be entitled to engage in this practice as a means of transporting and storing its imported water and to have a prior right to recapture the water thus stored. The trial court found that the foreign water spread by plaintiff became part of the conglomerated ground supply, that the evidence did not establish any intention by plaintiff to recapture the water spread by it, and that plaintiff did not recapture such waters except incidentally by reason of the fact that a small unidentifiable and indeterminable amount of the water which plaintiff did extract from the conglomerated supply may have consisted of imported waters which were once spread. Contrary to this finding, there is evidence in the record of plaintiff's intent to recapture the water spread by it, and no reason other than such intent appears for plaintiff's admitted investment in the construction and operation of its spreading grounds. Plaintiff's intent to recapture its spread water was found as a fact in Glendale (23 Cal.2d at pp. 72, 76-77) and to that extent is res judicata here as to defendants Glendale and Burbank. The fact that spread water is commingled with other ground water is no obstacle to the right to recapture the amount by which the available conglomerated ground supply has been augmented by the spreading. ( Glendale, 23 Cal.2d at pp. 76-77; see Wat. Code, § 7075 (discussed in Glendale as former Civ. Code, § 1413).) Defendants point to no evidence that plaintiff lacked an intent to recapture the water which it spread and we conclude that the trial court's findings are unsupported by the evidence insofar as they negate such intent. Defendants concede that plaintiff should be permitted to reclaim water that it spreads with the intent of recapture but contend that the trial court acted properly in restricting plaintiff's future spreading operations. As a basis for this restriction the trial court found that artificial recharge of ground water supplies affects ground water storage capacity, ground water in storage, ground water movement (rate and direction), and ground water levels, and that artificial recharge must be regulated and controlled to protect the public interest and the rights of the parties in the utilization of the underground reservoirs of the ULARA. Accordingly, the court enjoined artificial recharge except on terms and conditions to be approved by the court which it reserved jurisdiction to determine. Plaintiff, being the only party engaged in or contemplating spreading or artificial recharge operations, [60] objects to these restrictions in the judgment. We think its objections are well taken. Plaintiff is entitled to use the San Fernando basin for temporary storage of its water by means of artificial recharge and subsequent recapture. (Wat. Code, § 7075 (quoted supra ); Glendale, 23 Cal.2d at pp. 76-77.) No necessity is shown for interfering with this right to use the basin for storage, for there does not appear to be any shortage of underground storage space in relation to the demand therefor.