OCR Text |
Show 128 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE Storage of Water Following is a discussion of some court decisions and legislative provisions regarding the storage of water by riparian landowners. California distinctions.-In 1910, the California Supreme Court held that a riparian owner might impound the water of the stream by means of a dam for the purpose of floating logs, provided that the rights of others in the stream- flow were not interfered with.667 Other later cases distinguish between tempo- rary storage of water in forebays, which is within the riparian right, and seasonal storage which the court has said is not a proper riparian use. (1) Temporary storage. To insure the uninterrupted operation of mills, water wheels, or powerplants in exercising this right, the riparian owner may make temporary detention of the water in forebays or reservoirs. He 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."668 (2) Seasonal storage. Decisions acknowledging that the riparian owner may make a mere temporary detention of the water for operating machinery have no bearing upon such a prolonged and indefinite storage and withdrawal of stream waters as would be effectuated with the use of a large impounding dam and reservoir.669 A detention of surplus water above the needs of the riparian owner, 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."670 Subsequent consideration of this topic by the California Supreme Court led it in a 1933 case to redeclare, with approval, the principle established in the Herminghaus and Seneca cases, substantially as follows: Seasonal storage of water for power purposes is not a proper riparian use. If continued for the time prescribed by the statute of limitations, it may ripen into a prescriptive right; hence, the downstream riparian is entitled to an injunction or damages for substantial interference with his right. The court said these two cases settled these propositions and set at rest the question of seasonal carryover by a riparian owner who dams the entire streamflow, by determining that such critical of the irrigation practices followed by one of the parties, and stated the general principles as to conservation and proper use of water which an irrigator should follow. 661 San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & In. Co. v. Fresno Flume & Irr. Co., 158 Cal. 626, 631-632,112 Pac. 182(1910). 66BSeneca Consol. Gold Mines Co. v. Great Western Power Co., 209 Cal. 206, 215-216, 219, 287 Pac. 93 (1930). See Herminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 111, 252 Pac. 607 (1926); Colorado Power Co. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 218 Cal. 559, 565, 24 Pac. (2d) 495 (1933). 669Herminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 111, 252 Pac. 607 (1926). 6™Seneca Consol. Gold Mines Co. v. Great Western Power Co., 209 Cal. 206, 216-217, 219, 287 Pac. 93 (1930). |