OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 39 (2) Effect on other riparians. While it is settled that the grant of a riparian right is binding as between the grantor and grantee, it is equally well settled that such a grant is not operable if its effect is adverse to other riparian proprietors. But the applicable rules in the latter regard may vary from State to State and in some States are rather unsettled. This is discussed further under "Exercise of the Riparian Right-Place of Use of Water-Nonriparian land." The California Supreme Court has indicated that a riparian could not, by transfer of his riparian rights, sell to another, as against other riparians, the right to use the water on nonriparian land. His grant would estop him from complaining of such use but it would not affect other riparians.203 The 1928 California constitutional amendment, article 14, section 3, deprived the riparian owner of the right to enjoin an act that caused him no substantial injury, while assuring him protection in his rights of both present and prospective reasonable beneficial use. This is discussed in chapter 13 under "Remedies for Infringement-Injunction-Riparian Owners-California," para- graphs 4 and 5. The Supreme Court of Texas has taken the position that the riparian owner has the right to divert riparian water to nonriparian lands if the supply is abundant and if no possible injury can result to lower riparian owners. Also, it is quite true in this State that a riparian owner cannot unconditionally grant the use of his riparian water to nonriparian lands, but again this is so only to the extent that he cannot grant such use to the detriment of other riparian proprietors. Apparently, it is only a prejudicial diversion that is prohibited.204 The expressed view of the Oklahoma Supreme Court is that a riparian owner has the right to make any use of the water, beneficial to himself, which his situation makes possible, so long as he does not inflict substantial or material injury on other riparians who are to be deemed as having corresponding rights; that the taking of water to nonriparian lands is not of itself an unreasonable use of the water, but when considered in connection with all other circumstances it might be made unreasonable; and to entitle lower riparian owners to relief in such a case, they must show that they suffered an injury to the use of water which the law recognized as belonging to them.205 The syllabus by the court in this case includes the statement that: "The right of a 203Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 150 Cal. 520, 526, 89 Pac. 338 (1907). See also Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi-Tropic Water Co., 64 Cal. 185, 189, 30 Pac. 623 (1883); Mt. Shasta Power Corp. v. McArthur, 109 Cal. App. 171, 192-193, 292 Pac. 549 (1930, hearing denied by supreme court). ™ Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 25-28, 296 S.W. 273 (1927). "The defendant in error is a riparian proprietor, and as such had the legal right to take riparian water from the stream, and use it or sell it for use on either riparian or non-riparian land, unless it thereby interfered with some other riparian owner." Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Arseneaux, 116 Tex. 603, 610, 297 S.W. 225 (1927). See also the discussion in chapter 13 under "Remedies for Infringement-Injunction-Riparian Owners-Texas." 205Smith v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 197 Okla. 499, 501-502,172 Pac. (2d) 1002 (1946). |