upr000314 11

[RIPARIAN LAW DECLARED VOID I Amendment No. 27 Decided JVetv' Amendment Branded | \Held to be^Confiscatory of\ Water Rights I Ruling Made in Cottier Case at Merced 'M E R C E D , Nov. 20. (S’)—The Con stitutional Amendment regulating riparian rights, approved by Califor­nia voters at the election this month, was declared unconstitutional today by Judge Smith of Calaveras county, who' ruled on it when it was. Invoked in William Collier’s $100,000 suit against, the Merced Irrigation Dis trict. ' - The decision said the new law conflicts with the Federal Constitu­tion in that it . takes the rights and property of a riparian owner with­out due compensation. Attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant said the decision would be appealed. The constitutional amendment Was passed by the last Legislature and was submitted to the voters. The new law will became effective immediately after the election result is announced officially by the Secre­tary of State.' - Collier sued the irrigation dis­trict, alleging. he was damaged to the extent of $100,000 by the dis­trict’s diversion of Merced River water to the storage reservoir at Exchequer. Collier’s land is on the river near Livingston, and he con­tended ^withdrawal of the norteal stream flow lessened its productiv­ity. The irrigation district invoked the new law in Its defense, al­though not yet officially in force. The constitutional amendment was intended to limit riparian own­ers to damages iff the ratio of the .amount of water they could eco­nomically divert and use on their land. Attorneys said it "was sub­mitted by the Legislature to cure such-'Situations as arose in the Herminghaus case at Fresno, when riparian owners Won judgment fo r nearly a million dollars against the Southern Californio Edison Com­pany, which had diverted part of the stream for power purposes, ' 1sant7~