OCR Text |
Show 442 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES development was made for public use, and has suffered it to proceed at large expense to successful operation, having reasonable cause to believe it would affect his own water supply, the injunction should be refused, and the party left to his action for such damages as he can prove."967 Distinctions Wiel sums up the basic distinctions by stating:968 "Laches or acquiescence must be distinguished from estoppel, elsewhere considered, as estoppel would bar a right, and there must be some degree of turpitude to raise it, whereas laches but bars an injunction because of lack of diligence in seeking the remedy while leaving an action at law for damages." In the interstate case referred to above, the Supreme Court stated with respect to the possible forfeiture of a water right by inequitable conduct under the circumstances of this case: "The label of the acts is unimportant, whether laches, estoppel or abandonment. What matters is their quality. Persistence in such conduct may extinguish the equitable right. It may bar an equitable remedy."969 Estoppel by Reason of Laches Despite the distinctions previously pointed out, there are circumstances under which laches was held to be an important or even a controlling element of estoppel. In an 1894 case, the Washington Supreme Court held the principle of estoppel inapplicable, and in declaring laches also inapplicable, the court said the record was destitute of proof that the wrongful acts complained of were ever acquiesced in or assented to, "unless the mere abstaining from legal proceedings must necessarily be regarded as such proof, and we must decline to so regard it." Where a legal right is involved, said the court, mere laches without estoppel cannot defeat such right.970 The Idaho Supreme Court has said:971 It satisfactorily and conclusively appears that, even though appellant's title may have been originally questionable or uncer- tain, nevertheless, respondents have stood by, with full knowledge of all the facts, and for more than twenty years have allowed appellant to proceed on the theory that it had valid title to these water rights and a legal right to have the water diverted from the New York Canal; and in the meanwhile has incurred large indebtedness on the strength of its title and right until now ^Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 136, 70 Pac. 663 (1902), 74 Pac. 766 (1903). 968Wiel, S.C., "Water Rights in the Western States," 3d ed., vol. 1, § 644 (1911). 969 Washington v. Oregon, 297 U.S. 517, 528 (1936). 970Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 588, 590, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). 971 Hillcrest In. Dist. v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 57 Idaho 403, 408-409, 66 Pac. (2d) 115(1937). |