Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130324
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:42:21+00:00

Document:
WATER RIGHTS 155 guaranties."91 It is often said to be a vested property right.92 Although they are qualified and not absolute rights of property,93 "riparian rights are substantial property rights which may not be arbitrarily destroyed."94 That a riparian right is a property right, said the Kansas Supreme Court in an early decision, "is unquestioned and familiar law."95 Private property.-The riparian right is a right of private property,96 vested exclusively in the owner of the abutting land for use only on that land; and it is not of a political nature.97 Real Property That the riparian right is real estate has been acknowledged uniformly by the courts of the West that have had occasion to pass upon or to discuss the property nature of the right. This has been done in various ways. Some examples follow: The water right that attaches to riparian land by virtue of its location is real estate: It is identified with the realty,98 and is a part thereof.99 It is a part of the riparian owner's estate.100 The riparian right is incident to the ownership of upland and it enters materially into the actual value thereof.101 This property right, like any other part of the realty, is subject to taking for public use under the power of eminent domain and to loss in other ways provided by law.102 A contract for the sale of riparian waters was held by the Supreme Court of Texas to be one affecting real estate to such an extent as to be within the (1966). The right to the continued existence of the stream conditions at the land- owner's land is property: Atchison, Topeka & SantaFeRy. v.Hadley, 168 Okla. 588, 591, 35Pac. (2d) 463 (1934). 9lParker v. El Paso County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 116 Tex. 631, 643, 297 S. W. 737 (1927). 92St. Germain Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Hawthorne Ditch Co., 32 S. Dak. 260, 267,143 N. W. 124 (1913). "We, therefore, here, reassert the riparian right to be a vested property right inhering in and a part and parcel of the abutting lands* * *." Fall River Valley Irr. Dist. v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 202 Cal. 56, 65, 259 Pac. 444 (1927). "Martin v. British American Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193, 195, 102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940). 94California-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 73 Fed. (2d) 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1934). "Such rights are not unlimited, but they are substantial." Greenman v. Fort Worth, 308 S. W. (2d) 553,555 (Tex. Civ. App. 1957, error refused n.r.e.). 95Emporia v.Soden, 25 Kans. 588,604, 37 Am. Rep. 265 (1881). 96San Bernardino v. Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 13,198 Pac. 784 (1921). "Antioch v. Williams Irr. Dist., 188 Cal. 451, 456, 205 Pac. 688 (1922). 9*Lux v.Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 391,4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886). "Palmer v. Railroad Commission, 167 Cal. 163, 173, 138 Pac. 997 (1914); Frizell v. Bindley, 144 Kans. 84,91, 58 Pac. (2d) 95 (1936). 100Bernot v.Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 544, 143 Pac. 104 (1914). 101 Parsons v. Sioux Falls, 65 S. Dak. 145, 151, 272 N. W. 288 (1937). 102 Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 346-347, 93 N. W. 781 (1903), overruled on different matters by Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 147, 141 N. W. (2d) 738 (1966).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.