| OCR Text |
Show 392 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES improvement and selling water for gain, is clothed in such authority and subject to the same liabilities as a private person."695 (6) In a Washington case decided in 1912, the supreme court expressed the opinion that the act of a board of county commissioners in buying waters from a spring and conveying them in a pipe to a watering trough on a long stretch of road in a semiarid region would not be questioned. "If we admit this right, the legal conclusion quickly follows: that which the county can buy, it can acquire by prescription."696 The public-(\) The Colorado Supreme Court has said, "The unappropri- ated water of every stream is the property of the public against which title by adverse user may not be acquired."697 (2) In a Texas case it was adjudged that the public had acquired an easement by prescription across shore land for access to the beach for recreational purposes. Even though the property was used by the owners and others at the same time, the jury found that there was no permissive use. Under all circumstances, it was found that the nature of public use was adverse.698 The State.-(I) Whether prescription against a particular State is allowed depends upon the legislature and courts of the jurisdiction. In the absence of legislation, most courts have declared the broad general proposition that statutes of limitation do not operate against the State. Thus, while the State retains title to the land, title to such land cannot be acquired by adverse possession or prescription.699 (2) Legislation in California specifically provides that "no possession by any person, firm or corporation no matter how long continued of any land, water, water right, easement, or other property whatsover * * * dedicated to or owned by the state * * * shall ever ripen into any title, interest or right against the owner thereof."700 Colorado has a similar provision.701 (3) It is provided in the Texas statute of limitations that "The right of the State * * * shall not be barred by any of the provisions of this Title * * *."702 According to the supreme court, "Title cannot be acquired by adverse possession of land belonging to the state, and such possession is not evidence that the land possessed is not the property of the state."703 69SEbell v. Baker, 137 Oreg. 427,439-440, 299 Pac. 313 (1931). 696Kiser v. Douglas County, 70 Wash. 242, 250, 126 Pac. 622 (1912). 691Mountain Meadow Ditch & In. Co. v. Park Ditch & Res. Co., 130 Colo. 537, 539-540, 277 Pac. (2d) 527 (1954). The riparian water rights doctrine has not generally been recognized in Colorado. *'* Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, 375 S.W. (2d) 923, 937-938 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964, error refused n.r.e.). 699Annot. 55 A.L.R. 2d 554, 578 et seq. (1957). See also, 3 Am. Jur. 2d Adverse Possession § 205 (1962). 700Cal. Civ. Code § 1007 (West Supp. 1970). 701 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 118-7-1(2) (Supp. 1967). 703 Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 5517 (1958). ™Weatherly v. Jackson, 123 Tex. 213, 222, 71 S.W. (2d) 259 (1934); accord, Jackson v. |
