OCR Text |
Show 140 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE above the boundary of one of plaintiffs parcels from which the riparian right had been divested, but below the parcel the riparian right of which was still in effect. The supreme court held that notwithstanding the divestiture of riparian rights from two of plaintiffs parcels, the two parties in a true sense were opposite riparian owners (which they unquestionably were at the location of plaintiffs intermediate parcel). By a strange course of reasoning, the court reached the conclusion that the defendant was not exceeding its riparian rights in carrying the water throughout the length of its riparian holdings, on the left bank of the stream, putting it to use at the lowest point on the left side, and there returning the water to the stream just above its lower boundary and above the lower boundary of the plaintiffs opposite "riparian" tract. This strained conclusion disregards the fact that the plaintiffs lowest parcel, divested of its riparian rights which now belonged to defendant, had a nonriparian status despite its contiguity to the stream. Therefore, the defendant was not returning the water to the stream opposite plaintiffs legally riparian land, but far below it where, even though he owned the right bank tract, he had no riparian privileges in connection with it. The supreme court did point out that plaintiff had not shown any substantial beneficial use to which he could have put the water on his riparian tract if defendant had not used the water on its opposite riparian tract. Under such circumstances, each owner may use all the water beneficially so long as the other has no use for it. This of course accords with recognized riparian law. Presumably, the court could have rested its decision on this point and thus avoided the strained interpretations of opposite riparian ownerships. Relations Between Organization and Riparian Proprietors Character of water organizations.-Characteristics of both public and private enterprises having to do with the supply and service of water to consumers are discussed in broad outline in chapter 8 under "Elements of the Appropriative Right-Sale, Rental, or Distribution of Water." That discussion is slanted, of course, toward the relations between group organizations and rights to appropriate water. However, the fundamental legal characteristics of various kinds of enterprises as there outlined apply in discussions of riparian as well as appropriation relationships. A shorter summary of water organizations appears in chapter 9 under "Diversion, Distribution, and Storage Works-Relation of Physical Works to Water Right-Control of Waterworks." Private company relations.-(I) California, (a) A California case indicates it is competent for riparian proprietors (in this case a land company) by specific agreement to make a water company their agent for the purpose of distributing the waters to which the proprietors are entitled. The water company under |