OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 121 use, the existence of the lake was held to be the vital thing that furnishes to the marginal land almost its entire value, the deprivation of which for public use requires payment of substantial damages.630 A Texas court of civil appeals held that one who owns part of the bed of a natural lake-which is very valuable for hunting and fishing purposes with the water on it and worthless without it-has the right to have the water maintained at its natural level unless that level is disturbed by another riparian owner for proper riparian uses.631 The Washington Supreme Court has held that owners of land riparian to lakes, on which homes and resorts were built because of access to the water for bathing, boating, swimming, fishing, and summer residences, were entitled to protection against lowering of the lake levels by diverting water therefrom for nonriparian purposes.632 (2) Recreation. Recreational uses, combined with the feature of attractive surroundings, depended on maintenance of lake levels in the cases cited under the immediately preceding subtopic. This was particularized by a California court of appeals by saying,633 [T]he argument that the use of water for the purpose of maintaining the level in Lake Elsinore constitutes waste and unreasonable use thereof is without merit. Neither the maintenance of health-giving recreational opportunities, nor the existence and continuance of large business interests devoted to and built up for the purpose of making those opportunities available to large numbers of its citizens, can be held to be against the public policy of this state. Recreational uses were recognized by the California Supreme Court in 1944 as being properly a part of the riparian right. These recreational uses were enjoyed by guests at resorts "where swimming pools, ornamental pools, boating, and the like" were furnished as part of the service to the guests.634 This case is discussed above under "Domestic Use of Water-Commercialized domestic use," the chief issues being not only whether these uses were riparian, but whether they were preferred domestic uses. Recognition of recreation as a proper riparian use of water appears in other cases as well.635 *30Los Angeles v. Aitken, 10 Cal. App. (2d) 460, 473475, 52 Pac. (2d) 585 (1935), hearing denied by supreme court; Elsinore v. Temescal Water Co., 36 Cal. App. (2d) 116,129-130, 97 Pac. (2d) 274 (1939). 631 Lakeside In. Co. v. Kirby, 166 S.W. 715, 718 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914, error refused). 632In re Martha Lake Water Co. No. 1, 152 Wash. 53, 54-57, 277 Pac. 382 (1929); Petition of Clinton Water Dist. of Island County, 36 Wash. (2d) 284, 285-291, 218 Pac. (2d) 309 (1950). 633Elsinore v. Temescal Water Co., 36 Cal. App. (2d) 116,129, 97 Pac. (2d) 274 (1939). t3APratherv.Hoberg, 24 Cal. (2d) 549, 560-562, 150 Pac. (2d) 405 (1944). ""Pleasure resort, Martin v. British Am. Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193, 195, 102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940); public swimming pool, Sayles v. Mitchell, 60 S. Dak. 592, 593-594, |