OCR Text |
Show 426 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES prescription a change from continuous flow to rotation can claim only the quantity that he has actually used under the new prescriptive system. Part of Invaded Right Only A water right may be lost, not only wholly but even in part, by prescription.889 The prescriptive title acquired by the adverse claimant extends to only the quantity of water actually applied to reasonable beneficial use. Such quantity of water often may be only a portion of the quantity of water to which the invaded right originally extended, thus leaving the remaining portion of the invaded right intact. Loss of Prescriptive Rights Under a provision of the California Civil Code to the effect that a servitude is extinguished, among other ways, when the servitude was acquired by enjoyment, "by disuse thereof by the owner of the servitude for the period prescribed for acquiring title by enjoyment,"890 it has been held that nonuse for a period of 5 years would extinguish a prescriptive water right.891 According to a California court opinion, prescriptive rights may be lost by "abandonment, forfeiture, or by operation of law."892 And such rights may be lost by adverse use on the part of others.893 In an early Texas decision, it was stated that a prescriptive right may be lost by abandonment.894 M9Hubbs & Miner Ditch Co. v. Pioneer Water Co., 148 Cal. 407, 417, 83 Pac. 253 (1906); Allen v. Swadley, 46 Colo. 544, 547-548, 554, 105 Pac. 1097 (1909); Haines v. Marshall, 67 Colo. 28, 31-32, 185 Pac. 651 (1919);Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 14 Haw. 50, 62, 63 (1902); Mally v. Weidensteiner, 88 Wash. 398, 411, 153 Pac. 342(1915). 890 Cal. Civ. Code § 811 (4) (West 1954). *91Garbarino v. Noce, 181 Cal. 125, 130, 183 Pac. 532 (1919);Northern Cal. Power Co., Consol. v. Flood, 186 Cal. 301, 305-306, 199 Pac. 315 (1921). See also the discussion at notes 379-381 supra. *92Lema v. Ferrari, 27 Cal. App. (2d) 65, 72, 80 Pac. (2d) 157 (1938), cited in 93 C.J.S. Waters § 166 (1956). As to forfeiture, see Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co., 178 Cal. 450, 456, 173 Pac. 994 (1918); Bazet v. Nugget Bar Placers, 211 Cal. 607, 617-618, 296 Pac. 616 (1931). In the Bazet case, the California Supreme Court said inter alia, quoting from the Lindblom case, that " 'The defendant's prescriptive rights do not extend to the impounding of the water for the mere purpose of holding it in storage. If, then, the defendant has ceased for a period of more than five years to apply to a beneficial use any part of the water so retained * * * it shall not be permitted to continue the diversion and storage of the excess over its legitimate needs, and thus prevent the application of such excess to the needs of others * * *.' " 211 Cal. at 617-618. '"Pasadena w.Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 927, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). *94Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304, 315-316 (1863). |