OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 23 landowner contemplates use of the water is immaterial. The right arises out of ownership of land through or by which a stream flows.97 "Use does not create, and disuse cannot destroy or suspend it."98 And this natural right thus annexed to the soil-unless divested under special circumstances as suggested above-arises immediately with every new subdivision or severance of the ownership.99 Parcel of land detached from stream. -Some courts have indicated that if the owner of a riparian tract conveys away a noncontiguous portion of the tract, the conveyed parcel is forever deprived of its riparian status unless a contrary intention has been manifested. Moreover, acquisition of title to nonriparian land contiguous to a riparian tract may not operate to extend the water right of the riparian tract to the new acquisition. But some other courts have expressed contrary views. Such matters will be discussed later.100 Property Characteristics Right of Beneficial Use Usufruct.-The riparian owner has a right of use-a usufruct-in the stream as it passes by or over his land.101 This right, as said in an early California case, "consists not so much in the fluid itself as in its uses, including the benefits derived from its momentum or impetus."102 It follows that the rights of a riparian proprietor do not include a proprietorship in the corpus of the water while it is flowing past his land.103 The California Supreme Court criticized a trial court for using throughout 97 Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 585, 86 S.W. 733 (1905). 9%Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 391, 4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886); Fall River Valley In. Dist. v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 202 Cal. 56, 65, 259 Pac. 444 (1927). "Johnson v. Armour & Co. 69 N. Dak. 769, 776, 291 N.W. 113 (1940). 100 See, under "Riparian Lands," "Relation to Chain of Title-Smallest tract held under one title" and "Contiguity to Water Source-Acquisition by riparian of noncontiguous land." 101 San Francisco v. Alameda County, 5 Cal. (2d) 243, 246, 54 Pac. (2d) 462 (1936); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 351-353, 373, 93 N.W. 781 (1903); In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 181, 213, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466,474-475,128 N.W. 702 (1910); Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 25, 296 S.W. 273 (1927); Crook v. Hewitt, 4 Wash. 749, 31 Pac. 28 (1892); waters of nonnavigable lake, Proctor v. Sim, 134 Wash. 606, 613-619, 236 Pac. 114 (1925). 103Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 390,4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886). 103 Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 542,49 Pac. 577 (1897); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 351-353, 373, 93 N.W. 781 (1903);/n reHoodRiver, 114 Oreg. 112, 181, 213, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466, 474475, 128 N.W. 702 (1910); Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Dodd, 125 Tex. 125, 129, 81 S.W. (2d) 653 (1935); Crook v. Hewitt, 4 Wash. 749, 31 Pac. 28 (1892); waters of nonnavigable lake,Proctorv.Sim, 134 Wash. 606,613-619, 236 Pac. 114 (1925). |