The Doctrine of Reasonable Use of Underground Water

In Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 144 (1903), the concord opinion of Judge Temple abolished whatever distinction regarding the rights of riparian cut down possessors to engagement percolating urines as opposed to belowground streams and produced that "proprietary rights be limited by the coarse interest of others,-that is, to a reasonable social occasion". In Ex Parte Elam, 6 Cal.App. 234, 239 (1907), the judicial system said that "no surface owner possesses the right to extract the subterranean water in excessiveness of a reasonable and safe utilisation upon the land from which it is extracted." chequer also City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside, supra, at 15 where the cost states:

"Each owner of land overlying the same ecumenical opposition supply of water may take such water on his own land for any in force(p) use thereon, so long as such victorious works no unreasonable injury to other land overlying such waters."

The doctrine of reasonable use of underground water was codified in the 1928 amendment to the Constitution of the State of atomic number 20 which states in part in the preamble to section 3 of article XIV thereof that:

"the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest consummation of which they are capable" and that "the right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or watercourse in this state is and shall be limited to such as shall be middling required for the be

Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116 (1903).

Likewise, the use by Gump of the water to form a lake to produce trout is also a beneficial use. The cases almost universally treat the propagation of seek as not only a beneficial that also a "superior" use, see Ex Parte Elam, supra, at 241 and section 14951 of the Water Code. Section 1243 of the Water Code states that "the use for recreation and preservation and enhancement of fish and barbarous behavior resources is a beneficial use of water." Bass should argue that the use of the water to create a marsh for duck catch is not a beneficial use and Gump that the use of water for a resort swimming pool and to create a lake and obstacles around the nine hole golf course are also not beneficial uses.

Support for Bass' position wad be found in Ex Parte Elam, supra, at 238 in which the use of water to create a duck kitty for hunting purposes was considered as "not beneficial to the land" and in City of Los Angeles v. Aitkin, supra, at 467: "the pumping of water from a well to ingurgitate a duck preserve for the purpose of hunting wild game which may thereby be attracted to the property is a nonbeneficial use of the water on the land, which is prohibited by justness as a waste of water intended for municipal use and irrigation." The standard of beneficial use can be a function of time and place. The use of water to further fishing and hunting might well be regarded as a beneficial use in a little populated state in which those activities are valued more than highly than they are in California. In Prather v. Horburg, supra, at 412, the Court relegated swimming pools for guests to a non-domestic use and therefore one slight entitled to preference. By that standard, the resorts of a city like touch Springs would be of little importance, which made more sense in 1944 than it does in 1996. By the same reasoning, the use of water in and around the golf course is a less beneficial use.

Cal. Water Code sections 495(a), 1243, 1257 and 14951.

In deciding a
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.