OCR Text |
Show 378 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES the whole or a part of a water right by adverse possession, he must pay all taxes upon the land to which the water right is appurtenant for the full period of ten years. Statute of /imitations Applicability to adverse possession of water rights.-(I) In one of its earliest decisions on water rights, the California Supreme Court held that to acquire a title to the use of a stream "by adverse enjoyment or prescription," it was necessary that the adverse use should continue for the period fixed by the statute of limitations as a bar to an entry on land. Several years later the principle that the statutory period relating to adverse possession of land applied likewise to the adverse possession of the use of a watercourse, or of some portion of it, was reaffirmed.616 (2) A year before the first California decision, the Texas Supreme Court, with respect to control of a stream by one riparian owner adversely to others "without a grant or an uninterrupted enjoyment of twenty years, which is an evidence of it," said that: "Ten years in this state would afford the same presumption of a grant that twenty years would in England, and in other states having the like limitations as to real actions."617 Referring to this decision, the supreme court said years later that the time required for adverse use and enjoyment of water to ripen into a right by prescription in Texas would be 10 years, by analogy to the longest period of limitation.618 (3) It is the general rule in the West that the principles of adverse possession of land and the ripening into prescriptive rights therein pertain-insofar as physical differences permit-equally to streams and rights to the use of waters thereof. This of course includes analogy to the real estate statutes of limitation.619 (4) Although the foregoing is the general rule in the West, statutes of several Western States contain specific provisions concerning adverse possession in relation to rights to the use of water. In view of this, it is believed that clarification will be furthered by presenting separately abstracts of Western State statutory limitation periods pertaining to adverse possession of land, followed by abstracts of statutory provisions limiting or otherwise pertaining to adverse possession of water rights.620 616Crandall v. Woods, 8 Cal. 136, 144-145 (1857); Union Water Co. v. Cray, 25 Cal. 504, 509 (1864); Dam v. Gale, 32 Cal. 26, 35 (1867); "That an action to enforce the right to water can be barred by five years' adverse possession we consider settled in this state * * * ," Evans v. Ross, 67 Cal. XIX, 2 Cal. U. 543, 545, 8 Pac. 88 (1885). 611 Haas v. Choussard, 17 Tex. 588, 590 (1856). 618Baker v. Brown, 55 Tex. 377, 381-382 (1881); Kountz v. Carpenter, 206 S.W. 109, 112 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918); Martin v. Burr, 111 Tex. 57, 67, 228 S.W. 543 (1921). In re- gard to this and related matters in Texas, see "Basis of the Prescriptive Right-Analogy to Adverse Holding of Land-The Texas situation," supra. 619 See "Basis of the Prescriptive Right-Analogy to Adverse Holding of Land," supra. 620 In addition to such statutory provisions, there are laws in some States relating to adverse possession of rights-of-way for irrigation ditches. See, e.g., N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § |