Chuck v. Alves

California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 1954 No. Civ. 15701Published

Before: Finley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's finding regarding the quantity of water diverted was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate physical laws, thereby confirming the respondents' original appropriative water right. The court further held that the case did not involve the acquisition of additional prescriptive rights.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding that respondents diverted no more than 1,400 gallons of water per minute is supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the use of a larger pipeline constitutes a violation of physical laws that would invalidate the trial court's findings regarding water usage.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the power of an appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence in the record to support the questioned finding.”

“the size of the pipe taken alone is not a complete index to the amount of water diverted by respondents.”

“Regardless of the size of the pipeline respondents are entitled to use only 1,400 gallons per minute of the waters of Stevens Creek and no more.”

[145]

FINLEY, J. pro tem.

This action involves a dispute over water rights. Judgment was for defendants, the respondents here.

Appellants are riparian land owners along Stevens Creek in Santa Clara County. This stream rises in the Santa Cruz Mountains and flows in a general northerly direction across Santa Clara Valley and empties into San Francisco Bay.

Bespondents divert water from Stevens Creek at a point above the holdings of appellants and carry the water so diverted through a pipeline for a distance of over two miles to irrigate their own and other lands lying along the pipeline. Their water right dates back to an appropriation made by S. F. Lieb in the year 1894, at which time Lieb constructed a dam across the stream bed and diverted water through a pipeline which was 12 inches in diameter for the first 2,000 feet, and 11 inches in diameter for its remaining length of approximately two miles. In the year 1936 the heirs of Lieb, who had inherited the water right and pipeline, constructed a new 16-inch line alongside the old at the same depth and on the same grade as the original. No change was made in the diversion works excepting that the box through which the diverted water passes from the stream to the pipeline was slightly extended. After construction of the new line the old pipeline was abandoned.

According to the statement in appellants’ opening brief, the only fact in dispute is “Whether respondents and their predecessors in interest have taken more water through the 16-inch pipe than they did through the 12-11 inch pipe. ...” The trial court found that they had not and that 1,400 gallons per minute “has been used by defendants and their predecessors in interest since and prior to 1936. ...” Appellants claim that this finding is not supported by the evidence, and that it is not only “contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence disclosed by the record, but is absurd on its face.”

After defining this single issue in their opening brief, respondents discuss at some length the question whether, after passage of the Water Commission Act in California, a water right may be gained through adverse use. This point we do not consider to be relevant under the circumstances here. If the finding of the trial court regarding the 1,400 gallons

Chuck v. Alves

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief