OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 117 The use of the hydraulic effect of the stream for the generation of electric current is, of course, a legitimate exercise of the riparian right. ? * * * The essence of the riparian right for power, therefore, is that the land owner is entitled to the benefit of the hydraulic effect of the natural flow of the stream measured by its drop from the highest point to the lowest on his land. He, too, may make such temporary detention in forebays or reservoirs as will insure him this right, but a detention of surplus water above his needs, from a wet season to a dry one, when he may utilize it, is not a use of the stream as it flows and is in plain violation of the correlative rights of proprietors below. (3) The Washington version recognized and sustained the riparian owner's right to use stream water in producing electric power.605 With respect to the right of storage by a riparian owner for power purposes, the Washington Supreme Court conceded the general rule that every riparian owner is entitled as against the others to steady natural streamflow, but acknowledged that strict application of this rule would preclude the best utilization of flowing waters. Therefore, "where power is desired the rule must yield to the necessity of gathering the water into reservoirs"-a proper and lawful use when made in good faith and with the least practicable interference with the equal rights of other riparians.606 Apparently, the reasonableness of an interruption by means of such storage is a question of fact, depending upon the circumstances of the case. (See "Exercise of the Riparian Right-Storage of Water," below.) (4) The question of transmission of electric energy to nonriparian lands was litigated in California. The supreme court held that the generation of electric energy on riparian land is a proper use of the water under the riparian right even though the electricity is transmitted away from the riparian land for use at distant points not riparian to the stream. The court pointed out that the water itself is not transformed into anything; it remains in the stream channel or returns to the stream channel after passing through the power plant. The only thing that is exported from the area is the electrical energy, the product of use of the waterpower.607 An obvious parallel not alluded to by the court would be the shipment away from riparian land of food products grown with the use of irrigation water on the land.608 60SKalama Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Kalama Driving Co., 48 Wash. 612, 616-617, 94 Pac. 469 (1908). 6O6Sumner Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Pacific Coast Power Co., 72 Wash. 631, 640-641, 131 Pac. 220(1913). 601Mentone In. Co. v. Redlands Elec. Light & Power Co., 155 Cal. 323, 327, 100 Pac. 1082 (1909). See Herminghaus\. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81,109, 252 Pac. 607 (1926); Moore v. California Oregon Power Co., 22 Cal. (2d) 725, 731, 140 Pac. (2d) 728 (1943). 608 The use of water on nonriparian land is discussed later under "Exercise of the Riparian Right-Place of Use of Water-Nonriparian land." |