OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN RIGHT 13 5 stream by a riparian owner on nonriparian land is a nonriparian use, and that in making such use the riparian owner has trespassed on the rights of the lower riparian proprietors from the inception of such use.705 In another case, the court indicated that such use is hostile to the lower proprietors and an invasion of their rights, and if continued under the circumstances necessary to constitute prescription it may ripen into a prescriptive right against them.706 This view therefore is that the riparian proprietor has no right to divert the waters to nonriparian land as against the rights of lower riparian proprietors.707 In this respect, the California Supreme Court indicated that as the riparian proprietor himself has no right to divert the water to nonriparian land, he cannot as against a lower riparian proprietor confer such right upon another. On the contrary, "If he does not in fact use any of the water himself, the inferior proprietor has a right to the flow of the entire stream."708 However, so long as the rights of the lower proprietor are not infringed, the California riparian may contract for the diversion of water to nonriparian lands as against himself and his grantees only. The effect of this is simply to estop the grantor and his successors in title from objecting to the grantee's diversion. (See the earlier discussion under "Property Characteristics-Severance of Riparian Right from Land-Grant-(1) Effect as against grantees" and "(2) Effect on other riparians.") The 1928 California constitutional amendment, article 14, section 3, deprived the riparian owner of the right to enjoin an act that caused him no substantial injury, while assuring him protection in his rights of both present and prospective reasonable beneficial use. This is discussed in chapter 13 under "Remedies for Infringement-Injunction-Riparian Owners-California," para- graphs 4 and 5. The Washington Supreme Court has said "A nonriparian owner has no right to divert water from a stream, even though the riparian owner is not himself using it.... Nonriparian owners have no right to divert water from a water course even though they are using it by grant or license from a riparian owner."709 ^Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 334-335, 88 Pac. 978, 981-982 (1907). See Moore v. California Oregon Power Co., 22 Cal. (2d) 725, 734, 140 Pac. (2d) 798, 803 (1943). ™Pabst\. Finmand, 190 Cal. 124, 137, 211 Pac. 11 (1922). 707Heilbron v. The 76 Land & Water Co., 80 Cal. 189, 194, 22 Pac. 62 (1889); Gutierrez v. Wege, 145 Cal. 730, 733, 79 Pac. 449 (19O5);Mi7fer v. Bay Cities Water Co., 157 Cal. 256,278,107 Pac. 115(1910). 708 Gould v.Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 543,49 Pac. 577 (1897). 709Alexander v. Muenscher, 7 Wash. (2d) 557, 110 Pac. (2d) 625, 627 (1941). In this regard, the court quoted Gould on Waters, 3d ed., p. 443, § 224 to the effect that "the rights of a riparian proprietor with respect to the stream appear not to be affected by rights which nonriparian proprietors may have acquired to use the water by grant or license from other riparian owners." The court also quoted Wiel, S. C, "Water Rights in the Western States," 3d ed., vol. 1, § 861, p. 913 (1911), to the effect that "Should a |