OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 29 fundamental and far-reaching importance have involved contests with appropri- ators. (See "Measure of the Riparian Right," discussed later.) Specific quantity of water, when fixed.-This question is discussed later under "Measure of the Riparian Right." Briefly, as against other riparian owners, the riparian right usually does not relate to any specific quantity of water, because in its nature this right is a tenancy in common, not a separate or severable estate. If the water were apportioned, each owner's share would fluctuate according to quantities of water available and reasonable needs of all proprietors. As against appropriators, different considerations are involved and, at least in California, there are circumstances under which the riparian's quantitative right of use may be judicially determined. Quality of the water.-The common law rule respecting a riparian owner's rights in the streamflow, and its modification dealing with relative rights of reasonable use, applies to both quantity of the flow and to quality of the water.141 It was sometimes said that the riparian owner has a natural right to the flow of the stream, unimpaired in quality as in quantity142- a statement of general rule which was too broad for practical purposes. A more realistic approach was taken in holding that if the riparian owner is held entitled to sufficient water for the purpose of his lands, this necessarily means sufficient usable water.143 The upper proprietor is entitled to make use of the stream in connection with his riparian land, even though this involves some necessary impairment of its quality.144 "[CJertain uses of a stream are universally recognized as lawful which may affect the quality of its water to a certain extent."145 This pragmatic approach, however, involves certain essential qualifications. If a riparian owner is to have sufficient usable water for the use of his lands,146 as noted above, the upstream use of the water must be reasonable. This would not be the case, according to Texas cases, if the upstream right is exercised in such manner as to cause essential impairment of the purity and usefulness of the water for any purposes to which running water is usually applied,147 or if it causes stagnation of the water and sickness in the 141 The original Dakota Territory enactment authorized the landowner to use a natural stream while on his land, and forbade him to prevent the natural flow or to pursue or pollute it. Terr. Dak. Laws 1865-1866, ch. 1, § 256, Civ. Code § 255 (1877). 142Benjamin v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 477, 108 S.W. 408 (1908, error refused). ™ Biggs v. Lee, 147 S.W. 709, 711 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912, error dismissed). 144Holmes v. Nay, 186 Cal. 231, 241, 199 Pac. 325 (1921). l45Boydv.Schreiner, 116 S.W. 100,103 (Tex. Civ. App. 1909, error refused). 148Biggs v. Lee, 147 S.W. 709, 711 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912, error dismissed). 141Benjamin v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 477, 108 S.W. 408 (1908, error refused). |