OCR Text |
Show 142 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE (c) In a suit between two water companies that held appropriative rights, many water tenants of the junior appropriation company held or claimed riparian rights in the river water superior to any right of the senior company and thus were necessary parties to the suit. "The fact that they could, under present conditions, only utilize their riparian rights through their contract with appellee, did not affect such rights, and appellant would not be permitted to deprive them of such rights in a suit in which they were not parties, by enjoining appellee from performing its contract with them."730 (d) A riparian landowner contracted with an irrigation corporation to supply water from the stream to her land through its canal system in consideration of the payment of fixed annual charges, which contract was fully performed for a number of years. Later, she brought suit to have the contract canceled and all payments thereon returned. The court held that even though it might be true that plaintiff was entitled to the free use of the water, she was not entitled to the free use of the company's facilities for distributing the water on her land, since she had agreed to pay for them.731 (e) Riparian owners who had been using water from a creek for irrigation, domestic, and stockwatering purposes contracted in 1907 with an irrigation company-succeeded by defendant district-for delivery to their lands of water for these purposes, agreeing to conform to company rules and regulations and to accept their water at times designated by the company. After delivering irrigation water at fixed intervals and stock and domestic water continuously for many years, a new rule was established in 1940 under which stock and domestic water was to be delivered every 12^ days instead of continuously. The court held that under the terms of the contract and the facts of the case, the rule made by the district was a reasonable one for the supply, use, and enjoyment of the water that the contracting parties were entitled to under their original riparian rights.732 Public district relations.-{\) California. A county water district that is authorized by its enabling act to participate in actions and proceedings to prevent interference with waters that are of a common benefit to the lands within the district or its inhabitants, may lawfully proceed in a representative capacity to protect the rights of all landowners and other users of water within the district. This is the case, regardless of whether the water rights to be protected are riparian, appropriative, or correlative percolating water rights, and regardless of the fact that the district does not assert title in itself to any of such water rights.733 ™Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markhamlrr. Co., 154 S.W. 1176,1180 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913). 731 Berry v. American Rio Grande Land & Irr. Co., 236 S.W. 550, 552-553 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921). 132Honaker v. Reeves County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 152 S.W. (2d) 454, 455456 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941, error refused). 133 Coachella Valley County Water Dist. v. Stevens, 206 Cal. 400, 406-410, 274 Pac. 538 (1929). |