Weaver v. Eureka Lake Co.

Citations

• 15 Cal. 271

Syllabus

<p>Whether plaintiffs, who had posted notices claiming the water of a certain river, and stating their intention to construct a ditch or flume, and appropriate the water for mining purposes, began their surveys, etc., and prosecuted their work to completion with due diligence, as against parties attempting subsequently to appropriate the water, is a question for the jury, and their verdict, on conflicting testimony, will be conclusive.</p> <p>Suit by plaintiffs as prior appropriators of the water of Middle Tuba river, for damming up and diverting the water of three lakes situated one above the other, opening into each other, and discharging their water into the Middle Tuba river through the same channel, which is about a mile long, and is called “lake stream.” The quantity of water varies with the seasons. Sometimes the stream is a torrent, and sometimes it is almost or quite dry. Defendants, to create a supply for their ditch during the summer, erected a dam at the outlet of each lake, converting it into a sort of reservoir, from which the water was drawn as needed, contending that the circumstances justified the erection of the dams, and that the great value of the lakes as reservoirs justified the injuries resulting to plaintiffs. Held, that there is no law for such position, that if the injuries to plaintiffs were trivial, they would be dammm absque injuria, but that the legal superiority of conflicting rights cannot be determined by a comparison of their value.</p> <p>To render valid a claim of water by appropriation, the claim must be for some useful or beneficial purpose, or in contemplation of a future appropriation for such purpose by the parties claiming it. A claim for mere speculation will not answer.</p>