OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 141 such circumstances has no interest in or title to the waters other than its right to divert and distribute them in accordance with the agreement.724 (b) Riparian rights in a tract of land owned by a land company are preserved by a transaction in which the land company conveys the water rights to a water company in exchange for shares of its capital stock, and thereafter sells to individuals parcels of the land together with proportionate shares of the capital stock. The purchasers of the subdivided parcels of land thereby become the holders of their proportionate shares of the original water right; and the water company is simply the agent or trustee of the riparian proprietors in the exercise of their riparian rights.725 (c) A corporation can be created for the convenient and more economical mangement of a common source of water in which the owners of a number of tracts have respective rights of use.726 (d) With respect to the incorporators of a mutual water company who had acquired prescriptive rights, or who themselves had riparian rights, the California Supreme Court stated that it was immaterial to an upper riparian owner whether the right was enforced by them separately or through a corporation representing them, "either as their agent and trustee or as possessor of their former titles."727 (2) Texas, (a) An irrigation company by its incorporation was held, in an early case, to have become invested with the power to acquire a privilege of using certain stream waters for irrigation, but not a right to the use of the water. That water right remained to be acquired by purchase, or by condemna- tion if the use was a public one. Any riparian rights held by owners of land along the stream remained unaffected by the company's incorporation.728 (b) In 1911, it was held that the canal of an irrigation company that had condemned all the waters of Santa Rosa Creek should be treated, for all intents and purposes, as the creek itself. Hence, a tract of land contiguous to the canal, the owner having purchased a right of use from the company, would be considered riparian to the creek and entitled to have upper riparian owners restrained from diverting more water than reasonably necessary for their lands.729 ™Quistv. Empire Water Co., 204 Cal. 646, 651, 269 Pac. 533 (1928). ™Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co., 165 Cal. 148, 161-162, 131 Pac. 119 (1913). 726 Woodstone Marble & Tile Co. v. Dunsmore Canyon Water Co., 47 Cal. App. 72, 76-77, 190 Pac. 213 (1920). The reported decision does not state whether the water rights were appropriative or riparian, but apparently the principle would be the same in either case. ™Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v. Baldwin, 155 Cal. 280, 285, 100 Pac. 874 (1909). See Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v.Dorman, 137 Cal. 611, 613-614, 70 Pac. 737 (1902). ™Mud Creek In., Agric.&Mfg. Co. v. Vivian, 74 Tex. 170, 173,11 S.W. 1078 (1889). "'McKenzie v. Beason, 140 S.W. 246, 247 (Tex. Civ. App. 1911), citing Santa Rosa In. Co. v.Pecos River In. Co., 92 S.W. 1014, 1017 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906, error refused). |