OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE admitted facts meets all the requirements of a natural water course to which water rights, whether riparian or by appropriation, attach."383 For a general discussion of diffused surface waters, including rights to use such waters, see chapter 17. Interconnected Water Supplies Main stream and tributary.-Earlier, under "Riparian Lands-Relation to Watershed," some questions litigated in California with respect to relative riparian rights of lands located upon main and tributary streams have been noted. Briefly, the riparian rights of an owner of land situated upon a stream below the confluence of two streams attach to the waters of both branches; the drainage areas of both branches constitute a single watershed with respect to the owner below the confluence. The return flow from water diverted from one of the streams and finding its way into the other remains a part of the waters to which the owner below the confluence is entitled. On the other hand, as between owners of lands abutting upon different branches of a stream above their confluence, the drainage area of each branch is a separate watershed.384 Under "Some Other Sources-Pond" (also under "Property Character- istics-Right to the Flow of Water-Right to use water attaches only on reaching riparian land"), above, brief reference has been made to a situation that was litigated concerning the upper northern part of California in which main streams and tributary riparian rights were involved under most unusual physical circumstances. A natural rock reef extended across Pit River shortly below its confluence with Fall River. Above the confluence was an enlargement of the bed of Pit River known as Pitville Pool. During the low water season of each year, the rock reef, acting as a natural barrier, caused a substantial part of the water of Fall River to flow upstream into Pitville Pool. During floods, the waters of the two rivers flowed over the reef, leaving very little of the water of Fall River impounded in the pool. Under these circumstances, lands contiguous only to Pitville Pool were held to have riparian rights in the water of Fall River during the summer months of low flow, but not during the season of floodflow in the winter.385 River and slough.-\t has long been recognized in California that a slough connected with a watercourse and supplied with water therefrom is a part of 3t3Hoefs v. Short, 114 Tex. 501, 510, 273 S.W. 785 (1925). ^Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 330-331, 88 Pac. 978 (1907); Holmes v. Nay, 186 Cal. 231, 240-241,199 Pac. 325 (1921); Crane v. Stevinson, 5 Cal. (2d) 387, 399400, 54 Pac. (2d) 1100 (1936); Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal. (2d) 501, 532, 81 Pac. (2d) 533 (1938). ^Crum 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 (l934);McArthurv.Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 3 Cal. (2d) 704, 711-712,45 Pac. (2d) 807 (1935). |