OCR Text |
Show 54 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE Wiel, writing in 1911, noted that "The California decisions, while not controlled by governmental subdivisions, lean toward holding the extent of riparian land to the smallest parcel touching the stream in the history of the title while in the hands of the present owner."275 He strongly disapproved of the principle and of judicial interpretations leading up to it. The early Oregon and Kansas cases are not in harmony with this limitation on riparianism, as discussed above.276 The Nebraska Supreme Court, in Wasserburger v. Coffee, indicated that the riparian right ordinarily attaches, as between competing appropriative and riparian rights, to "the smallest tract [of land] held in one chain of title leading from the owner on April 4, 1895, to the present owner."277 This apparently would not apply between persons asserting competing riparian rights. Accord- ing to the Wasserburger court opinion, prior to April 4, 1895, which was the effective date of the irrigation act of 1895, a riparian owner was apparently capable of expanding the limits of his riparian land, comparable to the Oregon approach. This apparently would apply both as between competing riparian rights and competing appropriative and riparian rights. And as between competing riparian rights, apparently a riparian has continued to be capable of expanding his riparian land after April 4,1895.278 State lands.- Construing certain articles of the State constitution and the State water legislation, the Washington Supreme Court held that the rights held by the State in the State school lands had been granted for the purpose of irrigation to the public. Hence, the riparian rights of the State in such lands were waived as long as title remained in the State, but they attach to the lands by transfer from the State to private ownership, thus following the rule that relates to Federal lands.279 However, in a recent case the court held that "the state may establish riparian rights in its trust lands, to the same extent that such rights could be established by a private owner." It added that to the extent that the 1925 case is inconsistent with this holding, it is overruled.280 In the leading riparian case of Lux v.Haggin, the California Supreme Court held that grantees of State lands contiguous to streams thereby acquired title to riparian rights in such lands whether they were swamp and overflowed lands may own, although it may adjoin land owned by one of them which is entitled to the use of water." See also the discussion to the effect that the riparian land cannot extend beyond the original survey as panted from the government and that its boundary "is restricted to land the title to which is acquired by one transaction." 98 Tex. at 585. 275Wiel, S. C, supra note 229, § 771. 276 Notably at notes 260-261 supra. 211 Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 149,141 N.W. (2d) 738, 745 (1966). 278 In these regards, see the discussion at notes 262-264 supra. See also the discussion at notes 484-489 infra. 2n9In re Crab Creek & Moses Lake, 134 Wash. 7, 24-25, 235 Pac. 37 (1925). 2S0/« re Stranger Creek & Tributaries in Stevens County, 77 Wash. (2d) 649,466 Pac. (2d) 508, 513 (1970), discussed at note 84 supra. |