OCR Text |
Show 46 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE was adopted.237 While limiting the riparian right to reasonable beneficial use, this amendment expressly protects the riparian owner not only as to present needs but also as to prospective reasonable beneficial needs. This gave the supreme court its opportunity to hold expressly that the statutory 10-year limitation upon riparians was unconstitutional.238 This provision was omitted from the California Water Code when it was enacted in 1943. In Kansas, on the other hand, without calling the vested common law claim to the use of water a riparian right,239 the Kansas statute provides for the cancellation and termination of such right, as well as other water rights, in the event the holder fails, without good cause, to make a beneficial use of the water over a consecutive 3-year period.240 And in Washington, legislation enacted in 1967 provides that a riparian landowner (although this precise term is not used) who abandons his right to divert or withdraw water, or who voluntarily fails, without sufficient cause, to beneficially use all or any part of the water that he is entitled to withdraw or divert for any period of 5 successive years shall relinquish such right or portion thereof.241 These forfeiture provisions have not been specifically construed by the respective supreme courts. Dedication.-It was held in a case decided by a Texas court of civil appeals that riparian rights in the waters of a bay might be separated from the land on the shore and dedicated to the public to the extent that they were necessary for the purpose of public ways.242 Fall River Valley In. Dist. v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 202 Cal. 56, 67-69, 259 Pac. 444 (1927). 237 Cal. Const, art. XIV, § 3. "'Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay Strathmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 530-531, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935). The California Supreme Court recently discussed the history of the cases under the amendment in Joslin v. Marin Mun. Water Dist., 67 Cal. (2d) 132, 429 Pac. (2d) 889, 60 Cal. Rptr. 377 (1967). 239Kans. Stat. Ann. § 82a-701(d) (1969). M0Id. § 82a-718. See also § 82a-703. 241 Wash. Laws 1967, ch. 233, Rev. Code § 90.14.170 (Supp. 1970). These statutory provisions in Kansas and Washington are discussed in chapter 14 under "Abandonment and Forfeiture-Statutory Forfeiture-Rights Subject to Forfeiture-Generally not riparian rights." See the later discussion under "Measure of the Riparian Right-As Against Appropriators-Cutoff dates" and "Unused riparian right," for a discussion of legislation limiting the unused riparian right to the extent of actual application to beneficial use as of stated times, and related court decisions. ™Gibson v. Carroll, 180 S.W. 630, 632-633 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915). A onetime owner of a lot on the shore of Corpus Christi Bay placed on record a map showing a street along the waterline of the lot, the street area at that time being submerged land. This was held equivalent to a conveyance to the public of the owner's riparian rights in the waters that then covered the dedicated street. Having so dedicated his riparian right to the public for the purpose of the street, a subsequent purchaser of the lot could take no title to such riparian rights. |