OCR Text |
Show 144 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE Until the district connected itself with these private water rights-which it had statutory authority to acquire but had not done so-it had no right to maintain a suit to enjoin other riparian owners or water users from diverting and using the waters. No right of the district was being infringed; the only ones affected were the riparian landowners in the district. They could bring an independent suit to protect their own rights whenever they chose to do so; but they were not necessary parties to this suit and would not have been bound by any judgment in it. After the ruling in the Ward County case, the act under which the district was formed was so amended as to empower such districts to institute and maintain suits to protect their water supplies and prevent interference therewith.737 (d) Subsequently, in Wilson v. Reeves County Water Improvement District Number 1, an owner of land riparian to Toyah Creek brought suit against a district which diverted water from the same creek, at a point above plaintiffs land, for supply to landowners within the district boundaries. The purpose was to establish as against the district the plaintiffs riparian right, to enjoin the diversion of more water than the riparian owners in the district were entitled to, and to enjoin the delivery of any water to nonriparian land. Of several points decided, one was that on the authority of the Ward County case the present action could not be maintained without the joinder of the parties to whom the district was furnishing water under a claim of right to the use of such water vested in such parties. The court took note of the amendment to the district statute, but pointed out that while that amendment undertook to alter the rule announced in the Ward County case so far as parties plaintiff are concerned, it did not in any way change the rule as to necessary parties defendant in actions such as the instant one.738 Vivian, 74 Tex. 170, 173, 11 S.W. 1078 (1889). See "Private company relations.-(2) Texas," above. 737Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 7797 and 7798 (1954). 738 Wilson v. Reeves County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 256 S.W. 346, 347-348 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923). The amendment "does not attempt to authorize the maintenance of suits against it [the district] for alleged unauthorized diversion of water without the joinder of other necessary parties defendant." |