Opinion ID: 2590136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Past Cases

Text: In previous cases resolving regional water uses, courts allocated water according to preexisting legal rights and relationships. For example, in Fleming v. Bennett (1941) 18 Cal.2d 518, 520, 116 P.2d 442, over 200 parties asserted rights to the Susan River's waters. The trial court referred the matter to the State Water Commission, which prepared a comprehensive report with individual findings regarding 259 claimed rights of users affecting the watershed. ( Id. at pp. 525, 527, 116 P.2d 442.) We affirmed the trial court's decree, based on the report and additional evidence introduced at an open court hearing. ( Id, at pp. 526-527, 530, 116 P.2d 442.) As noted ante, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d at pages 305-306, 5 P.3d at pages 863-864, in Tulare, we outlined a water allocation method in a case in which the plaintiffs' water rights had different priorities. We also observed that [t]he trial court ... must fix the quantity required by each [right holder] for his actual reasonable beneficial uses, the same as it would do in the case of an appropriator. ( Tulare, supra, 3 Cal.2d at p. 525, 45 P.2d 972.) This court determined that [w]hat is a beneficial use at one time may, because of changed conditions, become a waste of water at a later time. ( Id. at p. 567, 45 P.2d 972.) Because the court cannot fix or absolutely ascertain the quantity of water required for future use at any given time, a trial court should declare prospective uses paramount to the appropriator's rights, so the appropriator cannot gain prescriptive rights in the use. Until the paramount right holder needs it, the appropriator may continue to take water. ( Ibid. ) Thus, water right priority has long been the central principle in California water law. The corollary of this rule is that an equitable physical solution must preserve water right priorities to the extent those priorities do not lead to unreasonable use. In the case of an overdraft, riparian and overlying use is paramount, and the rights of the appropriator must yield to the rights of the riparian or overlying owner. ( Burr v. Maclay Rancho Water Co. (1908) 154 Cal. 428, 435, 98 P. 260; Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116, 135, 74 P. 766.)