OCR Text |
Show 82 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE would be to deny any valuable use of it; hence, each landowner is allowed to make a reasonable consumptive use of the common supply.418 Generally, in the western jurisdictions that recognized the doctrine of riparian rights in streamflow, the theory of equal rights to reasonable use of the water was specifically adopted.419 This was subject, however, to certain preferences and exceptions regarding natural or domestic uses which are discussed later under "Purpose of Use of Water." Some implications of reasonableness.-(I) Application to the individual. Each riparian owner is entitled, as against all other riparian owners, to a reasonable use of the stream for useful and beneficial riparian purposes, necessarily subject to such diminution of the streamflow as may be caused by the reasonable use of the water by other riparian owners for their own proper purposes.420 Each riparian owner is entitled to his just share of the available water.421 (2) But the rights of riparian owners are reciprocal. They severally have the right to make any use of the water that is beneficial and practical, but by reason of concurrence of rights there arises the reciprocal duty of each to limit his taking to a reasonable quantity.422 The use of water by any one riparian owner must be consistent with the rights of other owners of land riparian to the same source of supply;423 and the reasonableness of the quantity of water to which any one owner is entitled is measured by comparison with the needs of other riparian owners.424 Reasonable use of the water necessarily precludes unreasonable waste.425 (3) Limitation to actual needs of proprietor. The riparian right to the use of water is limited to the actual needs of the proprietors, with the least possible 418 Weiss v. Oregon Iron & Steel Co., 13 Oreg. 496, 498-502,11 Pac. 255 (1886). *19Hill v. King, 8 Cal. 336, 338 (1857); Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, 24 Haw. 47, 70 (1917); Heise v. Schulz, 167 Kans. 34, 4143, 204 Pac. (2d) 706 (1949); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 351-353, 373, 93 N.W. 781 (1903);Bigelow v. Draper, 6 N. Dak. 152, 162-163, 69 N.W. 570 (1896); Martin v. British Am. Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193, 195, 102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940); Coffman v. Robbins, 8 Oreg. 278, 282 (1880); St. Germain Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Hawthorne Ditch Co., 32 S. Dak. 260, 267, 143 N.W. 124 (1913); Baker v. Brown, 55 Tex. 377, 379-380 (1881); Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 582-583, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). *20Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal. (2d) 501,534, 81 Pac. (2d) 533 (1938); Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 220 Cal. 295, 312, 30 Pac. (2d) 30 (1934). "Each riparian owner is entitled to the reasonable use of the waters as an incident to his ownership, and as all owners upon the same stream have the same right of reasonable use, the use of each must be consistent with the rights of others, and the right of each is qualified by the rights of others." McEvoy v. Taylor, 56 Wash. 357, 358, 105 Pac. 851 (1909). 421 Parker v. El Paso County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 116 Tex. 631, 642-643, 297 S.W. 737 (1927). 422 Parker v. Swett, 188 Cal. 474, 485, 205 Pac. 1065 (1922). 423Crowell y. Armstrong, 210 Cal. 218, 226, 290 Pac. 1036 (1930). ™Pabstv.Finmand, 190 Cal. 124,129, 211 Pac. 11 (1922). 425 Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 92, 99 Pac. 520 (1909). |