| OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 59 some of the parties here, were applicable to the instant controversy. Hence he was constrained to follow the doctrine of stare decisis. However, on appeal to the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in the Valmont case, the ultimate and controlling question for determination was whether, in the absence of specific grants of irrigation waters, Spanish and Mexican land grants along the Rio Grande have appurtenant irrigation water rights. The court of civil appeals and the supreme court decided this controlling question in the negative.301 But this did not negate common law rights. It was mentioned early in the San Antonio court's opinion that "The trial court then defined the watershed so narrowly that most of the riparian claims were also denied. There are other subsidiary issues, but the controlling question is whether the Spanish and Mexican laws recognized riparian rights to irri- gate."302 In the appellate courts' opinions, no further attention was paid to the "subsidiary" watershed issue. Some problems involving relationships between public water districts and owners of riparian land within their boundaries are discussed later under "Exercise of the Riparian Right-Relations Between Organization and Riparian Proprietors." Riparian Proprietors Public Domain The United States as riparian proprietor.- As original owner of all land and all water on the public domain, the United States made grants of land to individuals and to States under the several public land disposal acts. Under general Congressional enactments, the right to appropriate water on the public domain was accorded to individuals pursuant to local laws, customs, and court decisions. These matters have been discussed previously under "Accrual of the Right-Source of Title to Land." "The United States, with respect to the lands which it owns in this state [California], is a riparian proprietor as to the streams running through such lands."303 Originally, of course, as stated earlier, the United States was more than a riparian owner on the public domain-it was an absolute owner of all the water thereon. However, by the Act of 1866,304 the United States consented that an appropriator should obtain rights pertaining to any public land over which the stream from which he proposed to make his diversion might run. 301 Valmont Plantations v. State of Texas, 163 Tex. 381, 355 S.W. (2d) 502 (1962), affirming 346 S.W. (2d) 853 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961). 302 346 S.W. (2d)at855. ^Palmer v. Railroad Comm'n, 167 Cal. 163, 168, 138 Pac. 997 (1914). See Lux v. Hoggin, 69 Cal. 255, 338-339, 4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886). 304 14 Stat. 253, § 9 (1866). |
