OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 77 the watercourse, and that lands contiguous to the slough have riparian rights in the waters of the river with which it is connected during such times as the water of that stream is present in the slough. It is not necessary that the water in the slough be flowing; riparian rights "exist in any body of water, whether flowing or not." And a slough that connects with two rivers is riparian to each river during such periods of time as the water therefrom is flowing in the slough.386 River and cienaga.-Likewise, a California court has indicated that riparian rights in a river apply to the water in a cienaga (swamp or marsh) connected with the river. "Whatever water defendants took from the cienaga was the same, so far as riparian rights were concerned, as though the water had been taken directly from the river."387 River and lake.- Riparian rights attach to a lake that is part of a stream system as well as to any of its tributaries or to its outlet.388 Spring discharging into watercourse.-(I) California. It is well settled in this State that the owner of land upon which there is located a spring, the water from which flows in a natural channel across his land and thence upon or through lands belonging to others, does not have, solely by virtue of his location with respect to the spring, exclusive rights therein. On the contrary, he has only the rights of a riparian owner.389 The riparian doctrine applies both to the spring and to the natural watercourse that flows away from it.390 The same rule applies with respect to a spring on one's land that supplies water to a watercourse by percolation through the soil, rather than in a defined channel. In either case, the spring supplying the stream is a part of the stream insofar as riparian rights are concerned.391 Early in the 20th century, the California Supreme Court held that a riparian 384Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 87-88, 91-92, 99 Pac. 520 (1909);M/7/er & Lux v. Enterprise Canal & Land Co., 169 Cal. 415, 420^21, 147 Pac. 567 (1915); Herminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 92, 252 Pac. 607 (1926). M<7Hall v. Webb, 66 Cal. App. 416, 420, 226 Pac. 403 (1924, hearing denied by supreme court). ^Duckworth v. Watsonvttle Water & Light Co., 150 Cal. 520, 523-529, 89 Pac. 338 (1907); Dougan v. Board of County Comm'rs, 141 Kans. 554, 562, 43 Pac. (2d) 223 (1935). 3*9Scott v. Fruit Growers' Supply Co., 202 Cal. 47, 52, 258 Pac. 1095 (1927); L. Mini Estate Co. v. Walsh, 4 Cal. (2d) 249, 254,48 Pac. (2d) 666 (1935);San Francisco Bank v. Longer, 43 Cal. App. (2d) 263, 268,110 Pac. (2d) 687 (1941). 390Holmes v. Nay, 186 Cal. 231, 234-235,199 Pac. 325 (1921). 391 Gutierrez v. Wege, 145 Cal. 730, 734, 79 Pac. 449 (1905). The claim of the owner of land on which such a spring rises "to a paramount and exclusive right is untenable." Bigelow v. Merz, 57 Cal. App. 613, 617-618, 208 Pac. 128 (1922, hearing denied by supreme court). The riparian owner's right to have the water of a stream flow to his land does not depend upon the length of the stream above him, but "is the same, whether the stream commences on his neighbor's land or fifty miles away." Chauvet v. Hill, 93 Cal. 407, 408, 28 Pac. 1066 (1892). See Eckel v. Springfield Tunnel & Dev. Co., 87 Cal. App. 617,622, 262 Pac. 425 (1927, hearing denied by supreme court). |