206 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



SAN LUIS WATER COMPANY v. ESTRADA. 



(117 Cal., 168.) 



Facts. — Plaintiff was a corporation formed to furnish water to San Luis Obispo. 

 In 1870 defendant Estrada, a riparian owner on San Luis Obispo Creek above the 

 point of plaintiff's diversion, used the water for domestic purposes. The grantors of 

 other defendants about the same time used the water for domestic purposes and for 

 the pui-pose of running a mill. In 1872 plaintiff's grantor was given a franchise to 

 supply water, and in 1875 it was transferred to plaintiffs. Plaintiff's diverted about 

 500,000 gallons per daj-. Later the defendant Estrada used the water for irrigatino- 

 35 acres adversely to everybody, except two of the other defendants who owned 

 farther up the stream. The other defendants also used the water for irrigation. The 

 lower court held that plaintiff was entitiled to 500,000 gallons daily. Estrada was 

 entitled, except as against other defendants, to divert at a certain place as much as 

 he had been taking. Jones and Moreland were entitled to use the water for domestic 

 purposes, and after plaintiff" had taken 500,000 gallons to use it for irrigation. An 

 injunction was granted. 



Held. — The decision of the lower court was correct, except as to the point at 

 which Estrada could divert. He was entitled to change the point of diversion, if by 

 so doing he would not injure the rights of others. 



The transfer of the franchise to the corporation was not unconstitutional. 



Evidence as to the capacity of the flume and the amount of water used is evidence 

 of appropriation. 



The necessities of the town can not increase plaintiff's right. 



Plaintiff had a right to appropriate what was left after the use by the riparian 

 owners in 1875. 



Plaintiff relies upon appropriation and therefore arguments against title by 

 adverse use do not apply. 



Where plaintiff' accepted an assignment of a lease of the lands upon which a 



defendant was using a water right, such lease is admissible in evidence as tending to 



show that plaintiff' did not own such water right, and as tending to admit defendant's 



right thereto. 



SUMMARY. 



As a result of the preceding study of irrigation conditions in the Salinas Valley, 

 it is now possil)le to answer the questions laid before the advisory board of engineers, 

 and I think the conclusions reached will recommend themselves to the people of 

 California. The questions were — 



1. Is the present method of filing and recording claims to water satisfactory 'i If 

 not, what should take its place ? 



A^miver. — The present method is not satisf actor j-. Any sj'stem which it may 

 seem desirable to recommend to take the place of the present lack of system nmst 

 necessarily be based on our knowledge of certain physical facts. If these facts have 

 not been obtained as yet, are not of record, or defective when of record, then it seems 

 that the first attention should be turned to the collecting and digesting of this necessary 

 material. As even such data as are to be had are widely scattered in different localities, 

 it follows that there must be some central authority to which all this material must go. 



