OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 25 exercised, it will be protected by judgment against the possibility of the development of a prescriptive easement.111 It follows in such jurisdictions that mere "disuse cannot destroy or suspend the right."112 "Mere" is inserted before "disuse" in the foregoing statement advisedly, because perpetuity of the right is subject to a proviso that the riparian proprietor has not suffered his right to be impaired or destroyed by adverse use on the part of others,113 or to be nullified by creation of an estoppel against him.114 See the later subtopic, "Severance of Riparian Right from Land." The instant discussion deals with preservation of the riparian right as against other riparian proprietors. Regarding its preservation, abrogation, or limitation as against appropriators, see the later discussion, "Measure of the Riparian Right-As Against Appropriators." Right of Property Private property.-The riparian right is "a right of property"115-a right of private property,116 vested exclusively in the owner of the abutting land for use on that land; and it is not of a political nature.117 Being property, the riparian owner's right to take water from the stream is within the protection of the constitutional ban against the taking of private property without adequate compensation, unless by the owner's consent,118 to the same extent as property ulDuckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 150 Cal. 520, 531-532, 89 Pac. 338 (1907). 113Lux v. Hoggin, 69 Cal. 255, 391, 4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886); Fa// River Valley In. Dist. v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 202 Cal. 56, 65, 259 Pac. 444 (1927);St. Germain Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Hawthorne Ditch Co., 32 S. Dak. 260, 268,143 N.W. 124 (1913); Fleming v. Davis, 37 Tex. 173, 201 (Semicolon Ct. 1872); Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 583, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). ^Fresno Canal & In. Co. v. People's Ditch Co., 174 CaL 441, 450, 163 Pac. 497 (1917). liAHerminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 103, 252 Pac. 607 (1926). usHuffher v. Sawday, 153 Cal. 86, 91, 94 Pac. 424 (1908); a "vested property right," Fall River Valley In. Dist. v.Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 202 Cal. 56, 65, 259 Pac. 444 (1927); Mud Creek In., Agric. & Mfg. Co. v. Vivian, 74 Tex. 170, 173-174, 11 S.W. 1078 (1889); an "unquestioned" property right, Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kans. 588, 604 (1881); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 340-341, 93 N.W. 781 (1903); Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 147, 151-155, 141 N.W. (2d) 738 (1966), modified, 180 Nebr. 569, 144 N.W. (2d) 209 (1966); Atchison T. & S.F. Ry. v. Hadley, 168 Okla. 588, 591, 35 Pac. (2d) 463 (1934); Parsons v. Sioux Falls, 65 S. Dak. 145, 151, 272 N.W. 288 (1937). 116San Bernardino v. Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 13,198 Pac. 784 (1921);BighamBros. v. Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co., 91 S.W. 848, 853 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905), reversed and remanded on other points, 100 Tex. 192, 97 S.W. 686 (1906). xxlAntioch v. Williams In. Dist., 188 Cal. 451, 456, 205 Pac. 688 (1922). ll*Hidalgo County W. C. & I. Dist. v. Hedrick, 226 Fed. (2d) 1, 6 (5th Cir. 1955), certiorari denied, 350 U.S. 983 (1956); Petition of Clinton Water Dist. of Island County, 36 Wash. (2d) 284, 287, 218 Pac. (2d) 309 (1950). |