OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 95 with a priority date earlier than the effective date of the 1963 amendment arising by compliance with the appropriation statutes. Provision is made for protection of priorities based on beneficial use theretofore made under various combinations of circumstances.496 In a recent case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that this 1963 legislation did not apply to situations in which it concluded that the rights of the litigants had vested under the laws in existence prior to this amendment, although it was held to have retroactively eliminated certain procedural requirements in previous appropriation statutes.497 Segment of streamflow.-This matter is discussed earlier under "Attachment of Riparian Rights to Various Water Sources-Watercourse-Portion of stream- flow." Briefly, as against appropriators, the riparian right in California extends to a reasonable and beneficial use of whatever water is naturally available in the stream.498 In Washington, riparian rights attach not only to the ordinary flow, but to floodwaters that occur annually with practical regularity and hence cannot be said to be unprecedented or extraordinary.499 In Texas and Nebraska, on the contrary, the riparian right extends to only the ordinary flow, floodwaters being subject to appropriative rights only.500 Reasonable and beneficial use.- It is held uniformly by the State supreme courts that have passed on the question that as against an appropriator, the use of water by a riparian owner must be a reasonable benefical use. This was not always the case in California. In 1926, it was held that as against an appropriator, the riparian owner "is not limited by any measure of reasonableness."501 The unreasonableness of use by a riparian owner as against an appropriator in this case led to the adoption of a State constitutional amendment in 1928 limiting the right of the riparian owner as against an appropriator (as well as against another riparian owner) to reasonable beneficial 496Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § 1-A(b)6 (1970), referring to § 32. Regarding some other provisions that conceivably might affect existing riparian rights in Oklahoma, see chapter 6, note 271. 497 Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Central Okla. Master Conservancy Dist., 464 Pac. (2d) 748 (Okla. 1968). For additional details regarding this case, see chapter 6 at notes 272-273. For further consideration of matters discussed in this subtopic, see the discussion under "Unused riparian right," infra. ^Meridian v. San Francisco, 13 Cal. (2d) 424,445-447, 90 Pac. (2d) 537 (1939). *"Longmire v. Yakima Highlands In. & Land Co. 95 Wash. 302, 305-307,163 Pac. 782 (1917). The court raised the question as to whether this would be the case with unprecedented or extraordinary floodwaters, but there was no such issue in this case. • S00Motlv. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 111, 286 S.W. 458 (1926); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 373-374, 93 N.W. 781 (1903), overruled on different matters, Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 147, 141 N.W. (2d) 738 (1966), modified, 180 Nebr. 569, 144 N.W. (2d) 209 (1966). 501 Herminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81,100-101, 252 Pac. 607 (1926); first announced in Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & In. Co., 155 Cal. 59, 64, 99 Pac. 502 (1907), and repeated in Pabst v. Finmand, 190 Cal. 124,132, 211 Pac. 11 (1922). |