| OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 133 irrigation uses, after first stating that each riparian could take as much water as necessary for domestic purposes before any could be used for irrigation.691 (3) The rotation principle was imposed by a Federal court with respect to the use of water of an interstate stream flowing from California into Nevada. Defendants, who were users of water within California, either riparian owners or appropriators or both, were restrained from diverting the waters to the stream in excess of 5 in every 10 days from June 1 to October 1 of each year. In this way, the water of the stream was allocated for 5-day periods alternately between the States.692 (4) In a suit between two Texas districts involving rights to the use of water on both riparian and nonriparian lands, the jury found that it was more practical and economical to rotate the entire normal flow available in the Pecos River between the districts. Imposition of a rotation schedule by the trial court with respect to both riparian and appropriative rights was affirmed on appeal.693 A riparian user of water for stock, domestic, and irrigation purposes in Texas entered into contract with an irrigation company under which the landowner was obligated to accept his water through the company system at the times designated by the company. A regulation of the successor district discontinuing continuous delivery of water for stock and domestic purposes and substituting delivery every 12% days was held to be not unreasonable under these circumstances.694 Place of Use of Water Riparian land.-(l) The riparian right entitles the riparian proprietor to a reasonable use of the water on his riparian land.695 Definitions of riparian lands were discussed earlier under "Riparian Lands." The riparian right is founded on the theory that land contiguous to a stream 691 Smith v. Corbit, 116 Cal. 587, 592, 48 Pac. 725 (1897). These cases are discussed at notes 557-559 supra. 692Anderson v. Bassman, 140 Fed. 14, 29 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1905). 693 Ward County W. I. Dist. No. 3 v. Ward County In. Dist. No. 1, 117 Tex. 10, 14-16, 295 S.W. 917 (1927), reforming and affirming 237 S.W. 584, 588 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921). Authorities were cited to support the apportionment of water among both riparian owners and appropriators when it is shown to be the more economical method and when the result is not to impair the rights of the parties or of others. See Hidalgo County W. I. Dist. No. 2 v. Cameron County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 5, 253 S.W. (2d) 294, 296-297 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.). 694Honaker v. Reeves County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 152 S.W. (2d) 454, 455456 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941, error refused). 695Senior v. Anderson, 130 Cal. 290, 296, 62 Pac. 563 (1900) Joerger v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 214 Cal. 630, 637-638, 7 Pac. (2d) 706 (1932). "The use of water upon riparian lands is presumed to be riparian, and the burden of proving prescriptive rights is upon the person asserting them." Morgan v. Walker, 217 Cal. 607, 615, 20 Pac. (2d) 660 (1933). |
