OCR Text |
Show PRESCRIPTION 417 prescriptive rights against private lands as well as to appropriative rights acquired on the public domain;835 that in the case of either, the diversion could be made "by means of an artificial and a natural channel":836 that an appropriator who claimed a prescriptive right against riparian owners must be limited to reasonable beneficial use as against them as well as against other appropriators;837 and that the position of an appropriator who fails to apply the water to a beneficial use is not strengthened by resting his claim on the basis of prescription.838 An appropriation made under the Civil Code did not of itself deprive the riparian owner of any right.839 It extinguished the riparian right only when combined with a completed prescriptive right.840 This could be accomplished as well by a nonstatutory appropriation-an appropriation made otherwise than under the provisions of the Civil Code-prior to the time the Water Commission Act went into effect in 1914, when combined with prescription.841 After noting that some authorities say that the term "appropriation" is properly used only with reference to the taking of water from a surface stream on public land for nonriparian purposes, the supreme court said: "The California courts, however, use the term to refer to any taking of water for other than riparian or overlying uses. * * * Where a taking is wrongful, it may ripen into a prescriptive right."842 Prescription by riparians.-The owner of riparian land may acquire a prescriptive right as against a downstream riaprian owner.843 A California appellate court has said that riparian rights are separate and distinct from prescriptive or contractual rights to water, and "an owner of land adjacent to a stream may acquire prescriptive title to water therefrom, distinct from, or even in addition to his normal riparian rights."844 Many statements with respect to improper riparian uses on riparian land, in controversies between riparian owners only, have referred to the adverse rights simply as prescriptive rights when so acquired, without using the term "appropriation," there being no reason to do otherwise. For example, the California Supreme Court has said, "It has repeatedly been held that the 835 San Bernardino v. Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 28, 198 Pac. 784 (1921). 836Evans Ditch Co. v. Lakeside Ditch Co., 13 Cal. App. 119, 130, 108 Pac. 1027 (1910). 831California Pastoral & Agric. Co. v. Madera Canal & Irr. Co., 167 Cal. 78, 85-87/138 Pac. 718(1914). *3*Bazet v. Nugget Bar Placers, 211 Cal. 607, 617-618, 296 Pac. 616 (1931). *39Palmer v. Railroad Comm'n, 167 Cal. 163, 172-173, 138 Pac. 997 (1914); Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 150 Cal. 520, 531, 89 Pac. 338 (1907). M0San Bernardino v. Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 13-14, 198 Pac. 784 (1921); Turner v. East Side Canal & Irr. Co., 169 Cal. 652,657-658, 147 Pac. 579 (1915). MiAlta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal. 219, 223-224, 24 Pac. 645 (1890). ^Pasadena v.Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 925, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). *"Moore v. California Oreg. Power Co., 22 Cal. (2d) 725, 735, 140 Pac. (2d) 798 (1943). •"Mt. Shasta Power Corp. y.McArthur, 109 Cal. App. 171, 191, 292 Pac. 549 (1930). |