OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 73 Some Other Sources Lake.- Riparian rights inhere in the ownership of lands contiguous to lakes to the same extent as they do with respect to lands bordering on flowing streams.370 Such riparian rights extend not only to the use of water for irrigation and household purposes, but likewise to the maintenance of the lake level for recreational purposes.371 As stated by the Washington Supreme Court, one of the privileges, owned in common, of landownership contiguous to the shore of a nonnavigable lake is access to the water, which carries with it the rights of boating, bathing, swimming, and fishing.372 And a Texas court said, "Appellee is entitled to the enjoyment and use of his land with the opportunities, advantages, and benefits thereto accruing by reason of a portion thereof being covered by a natural lake, subject only to riparian rights of others * * *."373 Pond- As stated in chapter 2, the difference between a lake and a pond is in size. A pond is a small lake-a compact body of water with defined boundaries, substantially at rest. The right to use water upon adjacent land applies to the water of a natural pond as well as to any other natural body of water.374 This principle was applied to a pond (Pitville Pool) formed periodically in the bed of a stream by reason of the natural impounding of the waters of the stream and of a downstream tributary, as well as to other natural ponds.375 For more detail on the unique Pitville Pool situation, see the later discussion, "Interconnected Water Supplies-Main stream and tributary." Where all waters of a stream below the highest line of flow are held to be riparian waters, they necessarily include the waters left in the stream in holes 370Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 150 Cal. 520, 527, 89 Pac. 338 (1907); Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 87, 99 Pac. 520 (1909);Brignall v. Hannah, 34 N. Dak. 174, 185-186, 157 N.W. 1042 (1916);Saylesv.Mitchell, 60 S. Dak. 592, 594, 245 N.W. 390 (1932); Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Arseneaux, 116 Tex. 603, 611, 297 S.W. 225 (1927); Lakeside In. Co. v. Kirby, 166 S.W. 715, 718 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914, error refused); Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wash. (2d) 815, 819-822, 296 Pac. (2d) 1015 (1956);Proctor v.Sim, 134 Wash. 606,612-619, 236 Pac. 114(1925). 371 Los Angeles v. Aitken, 10 Cal. App. (2d) 460, 473-475, 52 Pac. (2d) 585 (1935, hearing denied by supreme court); Elsinore v. Temescal Water Co., 36 Cal. App. (2d) 116,129-130, 97 Pac. (2d) 274 (1939). 372 Petition of Clinton Water Dist. of Island County, 36 Wash. (2d) 284, 287, 218 Pac. (2d) 309 (1950). See Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wash. (2d) 815, 821-822, 296 Pac. (2d) 1015 (1956). 373Lakeside In. Co. v. Kirby, 166 S.W. 715, 718 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914, error refused). ^Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 87, 99 Pac. 520 (1909);Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Arseneaux, 116 Tex. 603, 611, 297 S.W. 225 (1927). "sCrum 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 (l934y,McArthurv.Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 3 Cal. (2d) 704, 711-712,45 Pac. (2d) 807 (1935). |