OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 37 If the deed of conveyance does not reserve from its operation any riparian rights incident to the land conveyed, then "on the face of the deed" such rights are conveyed as a part of the land.189 Grant. -It is competent for an owner of riparian land to grant the use of the water in whole or in part, leaving the fee of the land vested in the grantor.190 "It is well established by authority that riparian or littoral rights are subject to conveyance."191 (1) Effect as against grantees. As between the riparian owner and his grantee, such a deed is binding,192 providing conveyancing requirements have been met. The riparian owner thereby parts with an interest in the land.193 To that extent he parts with his riparian right to divert or use that water to the detriment of his grantee,194 and so disables himself from granting the riparian right to one to whom he may later convey his riparian land.195 By reason of his voluntary act he waives for himself and his own successors all claims based upon the doctrine of riparian rights, and he cannot complain thereafter of any invasion of such rights by the grantee or by the successors of the latter.196 The grantor of a riparian right is estopped, by virtue of his deed, from asserting the right in antagonism to the grantee.197 This "self-created estoppel runs not merely against the consenting riparian owner but likewise against the riparian lands."198 The California Supreme Court considered it logical to hold that a grant of his riparian right by a riparian owner creates an easement in the land, based 189Holmes v. Nay, 186 Cal. 231, 236,199 Pac. 325 (1921). 190Doyle v. San Diego Land & Town Co., 46 Fed. 709, 711 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1891); Alta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal. 219, 223, 24 Pac. 645 (1890); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 346-347, 349, 93 N.W. 781 (1903), overruled on different matters, Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 147, 141 N.W. (2d) 738 (1966), modified, 180 Nebr. 569, 144 N.W. (2d) 209 (1966); Johnson v. Armour & Co., 69 N. Dak. 769, 776-779, 291 N.W. 113 (1940); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466, 487,128 N.W. 702(1910). 191 Corpus Christi v. McLaughlin, 147 S.W. (2d) 576, 578 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940, error dismissed). 192Spring Valley Water Co. v. Alameda County, 88 Cal. App. 157, 164, 263 Pac. 318 (1927, hearing denied by supreme court). See Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 543, 49 Pac. 577 (1897); Fitzstephens v. Watson, 218 Oreg. 185, 344 Pac. (2d) 221, 228 (1959). 193San Francisco v. Alameda County, 5 Cal. (2d) 243, 246, 54 Pac. (2d) 462 (1936). Under the circumstances of this case, the court said, "It must be assumed that by the grant he has stripped the land of much of its value." 194 Yocco v. Conroy, 104 Cal. 468,471, 38 Pac. 107 (1894). 195Gould v.Stafford, 91 Cal. 146, 155, 27 Pac. 543 (1891). ^California Pastoral & Agric. Co. v. Madera Canal & In. Co., 167 Cal. 78, 86, 138 Pac. 718(1914). 191Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 158 Cal. 206, 213, 110 Pac. 927 (1910), 170 Cal. 425, 429-430, 150 Pac. 58 (1915). '"Spring Valley Water Co. v. Alameda County, 88 Cal. App. 157, 168, 263 Pac. 318 (1927, hearing denied by supreme court). |