## Facts

- George A. Shirokow owned approximately 4,020 acres in eastern Madera County used for grazing and recreation.
- An intermittent stream, Arnold Creek, crossed the property and flowed mainly in winter and early spring; it was typically dry in summer and fall.
- Before 1960, a predecessor built a dam and reservoir on Arnold Creek with a capacity of about 19.5 acre-feet; no appropriative permit was obtained.
- Shirokow acquired the property in 1965 and continued maintaining and using the reservoir to divert and store creek water.
- Shirokow applied to the State Water Resources Control Board for an appropriative permit but withdrew the application rather than comply with conditions.
- The State asserted the diversion was unauthorized and a “trespass” under Water Code § 1052, which authorizes injunctive relief and civil penalties for unauthorized diversion or use of water subject to appropriation.
- Shirokow claimed he had acquired a prescriptive right to appropriate the water through long-continued adverse use.

## Issues

1. Whether Shirokow’s diversion of water from Arnold Creek without a board permit constituted an unauthorized diversion and “trespass” under Water Code § 1052 authorizing an injunction.
2. Whether a nonriparian user may acquire a prescriptive appropriative right against the State for adverse use initiated after enactment and operation of the Water Code’s comprehensive appropriative permitting system.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment denying an injunction and directed that injunctive relief issue.
- The court held the Water Code’s comprehensive appropriative rights scheme precludes acquisition of post-code prescriptive appropriative rights against the State by a nonriparian diverter.
- Because Shirokow lacked a permit and could not validate the diversion through prescription, the diversion constituted a trespass under § 1052, and the State was entitled to an injunction.

## Legal Principles

- California’s Water Code establishes a comprehensive administrative system for granting and regulating appropriative rights, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board.
- Under Water Code § 1052, unauthorized diversion or use of water subject to appropriation constitutes a trespass for which the State may obtain injunctive relief and seek civil penalties.
- Post-code, a nonriparian user cannot acquire a prescriptive appropriative right against the State that would circumvent the statutory permitting system.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the exclusivity of the Water Code’s appropriative permitting structure against a nonriparian prescriptive claim and held that an unpermitted diversion of appropriable water is a statutory trespass subject to injunction under Water Code § 1052.


People v. Shirokow, 26 Cal. 3d 301 (Cal. 1980)