Erickson v. Queen Valley Ranch Co.
99 Cal. Rptr. 446, 22 Cal. App. 3d 578 (1221)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appropriative water right is measured by the amount of water put to beneficial use, not the amount diverted. Water lost during conveyance due to an inefficient and wasteful method is not considered a beneficial use and may be subject to appropriation by others, notwithstanding local custom.
Facts:
- In the early 1900s, John Pedro established an appropriative right to the entire flow of Morris Creek.
- Pedro constructed a dam and a 2.5-mile unlined ditch to transport the water to his ranch for domestic and irrigation purposes.
- After Pedro's death, his family continued to use the water for smaller-scale, non-commercial agriculture and domestic needs.
- Defendants later obtained permits from Nevada to appropriate water from Morris Creek, expressly subordinate to pre-existing rights.
- Measurements in 1963 revealed that five-sixths of the water entering the ditch was lost to absorption and evaporation before reaching the ranch.
- A contractor hired by defendants stopped the flow of water into the ditch, prompting protests from the Pedro family's successors (plaintiffs), who then initiated a lawsuit.
- In 1966, plaintiffs purchased the ranch from the Pedro family.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued defendants in a California trial court to quiet title to the water of Morris Creek.
- The trial court found that the plaintiffs' predecessors had continuously put the water to beneficial use and had not forfeited their water right.
- The trial court found that the substantial water loss during conveyance in an unlined ditch was reasonable and consistent with local custom.
- A judgment was entered quieting title in favor of the plaintiffs to the entire flow of water diverted into the ditch.
- Defendants, as the losing party, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a finding that a five-sixths water loss during conveyance is 'reasonable' and consistent with local custom sufficient to protect a senior appropriator's right to the full diverted amount against a junior appropriator, under California's constitutional policy requiring maximum beneficial use and prevention of waste?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, Acting P. J.
No. A generalized finding that a five-sixths transmission loss is reasonable and consistent with local custom is insufficient to protect the senior appropriator's right to the full diverted amount. California’s constitutional policy (Art. XIV, § 3) requires the prevention of waste and unreasonable methods of diversion. An appropriative right is limited to the quantity of water beneficially used at the delivery point plus a reasonable amount for conveyance loss. An excessive diversion where the majority of the water is lost en route is not a beneficial use. While an appropriator cannot be compelled to install a more efficient conveyance system at their own expense, a court cannot approve an inefficient and wasteful method that results in such a substantial loss. The water wasted in transit is considered excess water available for appropriation by others, and the trial court has an affirmative duty to fashion a decree that prevents waste.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms California's constitutional policy of water conservation over historical, but wasteful, practices. It establishes that a senior appropriator's right is not absolute and does not protect unreasonable transmission losses, even if such losses are customary. The ruling empowers junior appropriators to claim water that is being wasted by senior users with inefficient systems, thereby promoting modernization and efficient water use. It also imposes a duty on trial courts to actively investigate and craft 'physical solutions' to prevent waste, rather than merely rubber-stamping existing inefficient uses.
Unlock the full brief for Erickson v. Queen Valley Ranch Co.