OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 85 entitled to a reasonable share of the water, provided that it comes as a result of natural forces. But if the water comes from different sources at different times of the year, the source does become a material factor in the determina- tion.441 Common rights in the flow of water.- All owners of land riparian to a watercourse have a common right therein, each being entitled to sever his share for use on his riparian land.442 The concept of common rights among riparians in the flow of water was expressed in one of the earliest Texas water cases (in which, however, riparian rights of use of water were not actually involved), as well as in various subsequent decisions.443 Use of entire stream by riparian: When permissible. -Some State court decisions have indicated that, for preferred domestic purposes, a riparian proprietor may be allowed to use the entire streamflow, as against lower riparians. This is discussed later under "Purpose of Use of Water." With respect to other purposes of water use, if all riparian proprietors are not using the water on their particular lands, those who wish to do so may make use of the entire stream,444 unless and until the others have use for their proportionate shares.445 Any such riparian owner, until he has use for the water, has no right to object to its use by other owners on their own riparian lands.446 The use of the entire flow by the latter under such circumstances is not adverse to the rights of the former.447 In a case arising at El Paso, the Texas Supreme Court said, by way of dictum, that if one of the parties does not take his proportionate share of the riparian water and use it, then that proportion, so long as he does not take it, increases the residue of riparian water in the river available for the use of others.448 There is another circumstance under which the entire flow may be taken by a riparian owner-if and when none of such flow would naturally reach the downstream owner during summer periods of low streamflow, or if the quantity that does reach his land is too small to be put to beneficial use. Under such circumstances, diversion and use of the available flow by the upstream 441 Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 91, 99 Pac. 520 (1909). ^Carlsbad Mut. Water Co. v. San Luis Rey Dev. Co., 78 Cal. App. (2d) 900, 911, 178 Pac. (2d) 844 (1947); Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 335, 88 Pac. 978 (1907). 443Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304, 309, 84 Am. Dec. 631 (1863); Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82,115, 286 S.W. 458 (1926). *"Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 543, 49 Pac. 577 (1897). "*Joerger v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 214 Cal. 630, 636, 7 Pac. (2d) 706 (1932). 446Half Moon Bay Land Co. v. Co-well, 173 Cal. 543, 549, 160 Pac. 675 (1916). An injunction cannot be obtained under such circumstances. Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal. (2d) 501, 550, 555, 81 Pac. (2d) 533 (1938). "'Joergerv.Mt. Shasta Power Corp. 214 Cal. 630, 636, 7 Pac. (2d) 706 (1932). "*Parker v. El Paso County W. I. Dist. No. 1,116 Tex. 631, 643, 297 S.W. 737 (1927). |