| OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 123 Commission of Appeals in Diversion Lake Club v. Heath, 86 S.W. (2d) 441, 443, for in that case the court distinctly recognized that the right to fish in a stream depended on the ownership of the bed thereof. In this connection, the court said: "The general rule is well established by the authorities that the right to fish in a stream, whether belonging to the public in common or exclusively to the owners of the land bordering the stream, is determined by the ownership of the bed."637 The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a recent case appears to have considered a certain river to be nonnavigable for bed title purposes. It nevertheless held that it was "navigable in fact and can be fished on from boats if the fisherman gets on the stream without trespass against the will of the abutting owner, but that the fisherman cannot fix or station trot lines on the bottom of that part of the stream owned by the abutting land owner without permission of such owner."638 The Washington Supreme Court held that on a nonnavigable lake riparians hold such rights 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 riparian owners.639 Other Uses of Riparian Water Some other uses of water that have been held to be within the riparian right include the following. Floating logs. -The right of a riparian owner to impound the waters of a stream for the purpose of floating logs, so long as the operation did not 637Taylor Fishing Club v. Hammett, 88 S.W. (2d) 127, 130-131 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935, error dismissed). See also Reed v. State, 175 S.W. (2d) 473, 475 (Tex. Civ. App. 1943), where the State had acquired land that surrounded a nonnavigable lake. In that situation, the court held the State could prevent others from using it without its consent. 638 Curry v. Hill, 460 Pac. (2d) 933, 936 (Okla. 1969), discussed in chapter 4 at notes 99 and 118. See also Luscher v. Reynolds, 153 Oreg. 625, 56 Pac. (2d) 1158 (1936); Wilbour v. Gallager, 77 Wash. (2d) 306, 462 Pac. (2d) 232, 233, 239 (1909), discussed at and in notes 98-99, respectively, of chapter 4. See generally Johnson, R. W., and Austin, R. A., Jr., "Recreational Rights and Titles to Beds in Western Lakes and Streams," 7 Nat. Res. J. 1 (1967). Of two other Oklahoma cases involving uses of water by riparian owners, one related to propagation of fish, stockwatering, and irrigation of vegetable gardens; and the other to a fish hatchery and a fishing resort. Respectively, Markwardt v. Guthrie, 18 Okla. 32, 33-34, 90 Pac. 26 (1907);Broady v. Furray, 163 Okla. 204, 205, 21 Pac. (2d) 770(1933). 639Snively 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). |
