OCR Text |
Show 98 CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERCOURSE not have to show a prescriptive right in himself, or a use by himself for the period of the statute of limitations in order to prevent the return of the water to the original channel; "all he needs to show is that the person diverting it has suffered it to remain in its changed state for that period [emphasis supplied] and that he has made a beneficial use of the water relying upon the permanency of the change." Long acquiescence of parties affected. -Generally speaking, an important element in converting a new artificial channel into a natural one is acquiescence of the landowners or water users affected by the change for an unreasonable period of time.395 The actual length of time in any particular case depends upon the circumstances thereof. Estoppel.-It is also held that one who makes such a change by agreement with other interested parties, who expend funds and labor in the course of acceptance of the new conditions, is estopped from restoring the water to its former channel.396 The California Supreme Court held that one who makes substantial expenditures in reliance on long-continued diversion of water by another has the right to have the diversion continued if his investment would otherwise be destroyed.397 Dedication.-Even implied dedication has been suggested as a base. The opinion in a Nebraska decision referred to certain cases holding that where a change appeared to be permanent and was accepted by others who would be injured by restoration of the old conditions, the one responsible for the change could not, after a material time less than the prescriptive period, make the restoration without their consent.398 In these cases, said the supreme court, the question was considered to be somewhat of the nature of one pertaining to the dedication of a highway. Effect upon Riparian Rights Questions of riparian water rights have been involved in cases in which new stream channels have been substituted for original ones, or have been created in addition thereto. Thus, when a new channel becomes, in legal contemplation, a natural watercourse, "lands bordering thereon are riparian thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as are lands bordering on streams natural in their origin."399 In the case of a change made by mutual action of riparian owners, their rights and duties respecting the artificial channel will be the same as if it were the natural one.400 39SMatheson v. Ward, 24 Wash. 407, 410-411, 64 Pac. 520 (1901). 396 Whipple v. Nelson, 143 Nebr. 286, 291-292, 9 N. W. (2d) 288 (1943). 397Natural Soda Products Co. v. Los Angeles, 23 Cal. (2d) 193, 197, 143 Pac. (2d) 12 {\942>); People v. Los Angeles, 34 Cal. (2d) 695, 697-699, 214 Pac. (2d) 1 (1950). 398Johnk v. Union Pacific R.R., 99 Nebr. 763, 766-767, 157 N. W. 918 (1916). 399 Chowchilla Farms v. Martin, 219 Cal. 1, 19-20, 25 Pac. (2d) 435 (1933). 400 Jack v. Teegarden, 151 Nebr. 309, 315-316, 37 N. W. (2d) 387 (1949); Harrington v. Demaris, 46 Oreg. Ill, 118-119, 77 Pac. 603, 82 Pac. 14 (1904). In another case, the Oregon Supreme Court observed that: "It seems to be a rule of law that, where owners |