OCR Text |
Show 100 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE the constitutional amendment of 1928 as controlling the new State policy, several important principles were declared. One was that although now the technical infringement of the riparian's paramount right by the exercise of an appropriative right is not actionable, except to establish the prior and preferential right, nevertheless even if there is no substantial infringement of the riparian right, that is, "when there is no material diminution of the supply by reason of the exercise of the subsequent right, the owner is entitled to a judgment declaring his preferential and paramount right and enjoining the assertion of an adverse use which might otherwise ripen into a prescriptive right."521 Shortly thereafter, it was held that the prospective reasonable beneficial uses of the riparian should be protected in the same way pending the time he is ready to make use of the water, the appropriator being allowed to make use of it in the meantime.522 As stated earlier under "Cutoff dates," the legislatures of Oregon, Kansas, and South Dakota undertook to eliminate unused riparian rights (except for riparian domestic use rights in one or more States) in more or less similar ways. In Oregon and South Dakota, this was done by es- sentially denying their future existence as against appropriative rights. In Kansas, while common law claimants without vested rights could be enjoined by appropriators from making subsequent diversions, compensation could be had in an action at law for damages proved for any property taken from a common law claimant by an appropriator.522a Validity of the Oregon and Kansas statutes restricting the exercise of riparian rights was sustained by State and Federal courts on the several points presented for determination.523 S21Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. (2d) 351, 374, 40 Pac. (2d) 486 (1935), construing Cal. Const, art. XIV, § 3. S22Tulare In. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore In. Dist, 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 524-525, 529-530, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935). Most California law with respect to conflicting riparian-appropriation interrelation- ships was made in controversies in which the riparian right was adjudged superior. Regarding differences, as against appropriative rights, that may arise due to the time that lands passed into private ownership, see, in chapter 6, "Interrelationships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States-California." S22aKans. Stat. Ann. §§ 82a-716 and -717a (1969). See also, § 82a-721a which states "Nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting any right of an owner of an estate or interest in or concerning land to recover damage for any injury done to his land or to any water rights appurtenant thereto." Regarding the subsequent termination of every water right "of every kind" for 3 years' nonuse without sufficient cause, see Kans. Stat. Ann. § 82a-718 (1969) discussed in chapter 14 under "Abandonment and Statutory Forfeiture-Statutory Forfeiture-Rights Subject to Forefeiture-Generally not riparian rights." "3Oregon: In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 610-620, 625-628, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915);/n re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 173-182, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924), by a vote of 4 to 3; California-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 73 Fed. (2d) 555, 562-569 (9th Cir. 1934), by a vote of 2 to 1. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decree in this Federal case, but expressed |