The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-10
TT CANNOT TAKE
ALL THE WATER.
Los ANGELES MUST NOT DRAIN
THE Los ANGELES RIVER
DRY.
NO OUTSIDE IRRIGATION.
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES A
BIG SUIT ON RIPARIAN
RIGHTS.

The Supreme Court has decided that the
CITY of Los Angeles has no right TO divert
all the water of the Los Angeles River and
sell all that it does not need for municipal
purposes to non-riparian owners of outside
land. This claim of right on the part 0f
the CITY of Los Angeles attacks the riparian
rights of the owners of land upon the river
below the city, and one of these owners,
the Vernon Irrigation Company, sued to
enjoin the city and II. NJ. Ames, who
owned land on the river between the city
limits and the plaintiffs land, from taking
any more water from the river than was
necessary for their own use. The CITY.
however, was the principal defendant The
main contention was that while the city
had the right to draw from the river SUI
ficient water for its inhabitants still il had
no right to take more than that amount
and sell it to owners of non-riparian land
outside the city limits, to be used for pur-
poses of irrigation.
The Judgment of the lower court was in
favor OF the city's right, and also in favor
of the rights of Ames. The city had con-
tended that the old pueblo, from which
Los Angeles has sprung, had absolute
power to do as it pleased with the water Of
the river, and the city claimed that all the
powers of the old pueblo had descended to
itself
III commenting on the decision rendered,
and which is reversed, the Supreme Court
says:
This decree shows a very loose idea of the
doctrine of riparian rights. If that doctrine
be the true one, as that court has repeatedly
held, the riparian owner is entitled TO the con-
tinuous flow of the stream as part and parcel
OF his estate, and not as an edseme Mt or incOr-
poreal right issuing out OF land. He does not
own the corpus of the water, but incident 10
his riparian rights is the right to appropriate
a certain portion of it. 1t is only by some
species OF appropriation that one can ever be
said to have title to the corpus of the water.
The right of the riparian owner is to a Continu-
Gus flow with a usutructary right to the water,
provided he returns it to the stream above his
lower boundary, and the right to make COM
plete appropriation OF some OF it. But an ap-
proprietor cannot acquire a right to any OF the
waters of stream to the prejudice of ripa-
rian owner by any use, except under the
statutes OF limitation.
1t was set forth by the city that it has
enjoyed the right of taking the water to
sell to outsiders for over thirty years, but
the court holds that such action was ex-
ceeding the powers of the corporate body,
and was the mere individual act of the
city officers. 1t could not, therefore, be
cited to base upon such a custom a color
of right. The mere fact that an unlawful
act had been going on for many years did
not, in the opinion of the court establish
it as a legal custom. 1t was also claimed
far as any water which flowed below the
city was concerned, but this the Supreme
Court lays aside with the simple remark
that the evidence does not show such to be
the fact.
For the reasons given the judgment of
the lower court was revoked and a new
trial was granted.