OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 33 The riparian owner, therefore, can complain of upstream interference with the flow of the water only insofar as such intereference affects the stream where it passes his land.162 It follows that if in the natural flow of the stream to the riparian land there is insufficient water for the proprietor's uses, or if there is no flow to his land at all, he is not at liberty to go upstream above his riparian land and divert the water there solely on the strength of the right pertaining to his own land, without the consent of those who would be affected or injured thereby.163 As a result of natural flow conditions, therefore, one's riparian right may be in suspense during certain periods. This condition may occur with some regularity. It is strikingly exemplified by the situation that was litigated concerning the confluence of Fall River and Pit River in the northeastern part of Shasta County in northern California.164 (The physical facts are stated briefly later under "Attachment of Riparian Rights to Various Water Sources-Interconnected Water Supplies-Main stream and tributary.") Generally no right to water that has left the premises.-The riparian owner generally has no concern with any diversion or use of water after it has passed his land, and he has no right and is under no obligation to object thereto.165 His riparian rights are fully satisfied at the time the water reaches his lower boundary line,166 after having been available at his land, in quantity, quality, and time, for his proper riparian uses. He generally is not affected by any use of the waters of the stream after the flow has passed the lower boundary line of his riparian property.167 As the riparian owner is powerless to prevent any use of the water after it has passed beyond his boundary line, it follows that such down- stream use by others generally is not adverse in the sense required to found a prescriptive right against him.168 Nor is it sufficient to support a accord, Herminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 93, 252 Pac. 607 (1926). 162San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & In. Co. v. James J. Stevenson, 164 Cal. 221, 241, 128 Pac. 924(1912). 163Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 150 Cal. 520, 526, 89 Pac. 338 (1907); Drake v. Tucker, 43 Cal. App. 53, 58, 184 Pac. 502 (1919). In this regard, see "Exercise of the Riparian Right-Diversion of Water-Place of diversion of water," infra. 16ACrum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 117 Cal. App. 586, 591-597, 4 Pac. (2d) 564 (1931, hearing denied by supreme court); Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 220 Cal. 295, 299-302, 30 Pac. (2d) 30 (1934); McArthur v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 3 Cal. (2d) 704, 711-712, 45 Pac. (2d) 807 (1935). 165Holmes v. Nay, 186 Cal. 231, 234, 235-237, 242, 199 Pac. 325 (1921); Hargrove v. Cook, 108 Cal. 72, 77-79,41 Pac. 18 (1895). 166 United States v. Central Stockholders' Corp. of Vallejo, 52 Fed. (2d) 322, 339 (9th Cir. 1931). 161 Akin v. Spencer, 21 Cal. App. (2d) 325, 327-328, 69 Pac. (2d) 430 (1937). t6*Cory v. Smith, 206 Cal. 508, 511, 274 Pac. 969 (1929); Bathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal. |