Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130413
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:01:22+00:00

Document:
244 APPROPRIATION OF WATER season after the normal flow becomes too low to be of material use under his riparian right. However, the privilege of thus claiming dual water rights for the same piece of land does not necessarily result in giving the riparian owner the sum of the quantities of water claimed under each of his rights. It cannot be made a vehicle for acquiring the right to more water than can be put to reasonable beneficial use, which under the California constitution is the limit of all rights to the use of water in the State." The privilege is "qualified only with the condition that the total water claimed under the combined rights does not amount to more than is reasonably necessary to satisfy the necessary uses to which it is designed to be put."100 Such an appropriation of water by a riparian owner takes its place in the order of priorities with respect to other appropriators on the same stream. But it has no effect upon an already existing upstream riparian right.101 Texas.- The Texas Supreme Court likewise recognizes that a landowner may be a riparian owner and also an appropriator of water for use on his riparian land, and may claim either right without prejudice to his assertion of the other. Where a plaintiff had complied with the appropriation acts and, in addition as shown by his pleading, his land was clearly riparian, he was held to be entitled to equitable relief.102 In the landmark case of Motl v. Boyd, the supreme court held also that the riparian right extends only to the ordinary flow and underflow of the stream, and that storm and floodwaters are open to appropriation. Hence, defendants were not required to obtain a permit to divert and use water under such rights as they had as riparian owners. And as riparians they were not concluded because they had made application for a permit to appropriate storm waters for use on their riparian land.103 The riparian landowner in Texas is limited to a reasonable share of the ordinary flow and underflow of the stream, so far as rights of other riparians are concerned. The appropriative right is specifically limited by statute to the quantity of water necessarily required and beneficially used for authorized purposes. Hence, it follows that the quantity of water that a riparian owner in this State might lawfully apply to his land by reason of an appropriation of high flow could not exceed the difference between the amount of his applications of riparian water and his total requirements for beneficial use. Washington.-In this State also, one may claim rights to the use of water on the same tract of land both as an appropriator and as a riparian proprietor. It is true that in Washington the riparian doctrine has been considerably modified as "Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 3. 100Rindge v. Crags Land Co., 56 Cal. App. 247, 253, 205 Pac. 36 (1922). See Senior v. Anderson, 130 Cal. 290, 296-297, 62 Pac. 563 (1900). iolMcKissick Cattle Co. v. Anderson, 62 Cal. App. 558, 567, 217 Pac. 779 (1923). lO2Hoefs v. Short, 114 Tex. 501 510, 273 S.W. 785 (1925). 103Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 124, 286 S.W. 458 (1926).

References: v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.