OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 83 injury to other interested parties on the stream. No riparian can successfully claim more water than he actually uses; and what he does use must be for a beneficial purpose, without unnecessarily interfering with the rights of others.426 Any use that works substantial injury to the common right is unreason- able.427 "Where the result of the diversion is an unreasonable diminution of the water supply, equity will intervene to restrain an upper riparian owner * * *."428 (4) Reasonableness of riparian practices. In one of its early cases, the Washington Supreme Court characterized defendant's irrigation practices as nothing more than allowing water to percolate through the ditch banks along which orchard trees and vegetables were growing, and observed that: "This is not irrigation at all; much less, reasonable irrigation."429 In more recent cases, the Washington court held that one of the privileges of landownership on the shore of a nonnavigable lake is access to the water, which carries with it the rights of boating, bathing, swimming, and fishing-all of which rights and privileges are owned in common. In the exercise thereof, any proprietor or his lessee may use the entire surface of the lake so long as he does not unreasonably interfere with the exercise of similar rights by other owners.430 The mere method of diverting water from a stream-such as by pumping-is not a factor to be considered in determining the reasonableness of use of the water, so long as the use of the particular method does not deprive others of their equal rights.431 Later, under "As Against Appropriators," attention will be called to the California constitutional limitation of riparian rights to reasonable beneficial use under reasonable methods of diversion and use, which resulted from a long series of controversies with appropriators. However, the mandate is also applied as between riparian owners only.432 (5) Question of fact. Reasonable use of water as among riparian claimants is c question of fact, for it is impossible to formulate any mathematical rule to detem.lne such rights.433 *26Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466, 475-476, 487, 128 N.W. 702 (1910). ™Motlv.Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 115, 286 S.W. 458 (1926). 428 Woody v. Durham, 267 S.W. (2d) 219, 221 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954, error refused). 429Shotwell v. Dodge, 8 Wash. 337, 341, 36 Pac. 254 (1894). 430Petition of Clinton Water Dist. of Island County, 36 Wash. (2d) 284, 287, 218 Pac. (2d) 309 (1950); Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wash. (2d) 815, 821-822, 296 Pac. (2d) 1015 (1956). See also Bach v. Sarich, 74 Wash. (2d) 575,445 Pac. (2d) 648, 651 (1968). 43lCharnock v. Higuerra, 111 Cal. 473,481, 44 Pac. 171 (1896). A%2Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal. (2d) 501, 556-562, 81 Pac. (2d) 533 (1938). 433Carlsbad Mut. Water Co. v. San Luis Rey Dev. Co., 78 Cal. App. (2d) 900, 911, 178 Pac. (2d) 844 (1947). |