Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130377
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:58:50+00:00

Document:
208 WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS PERTAINING TO WATERCOURSES appropriation accrued and subsequently passed into private ownership.230 The status of such appropriations with respect to riparian rights attached to such tracts of land below the appropriator's point of diversion apparently has not been specifically decided by the California appellate courts. Appropriations made on Federal public domain and State lands after riparian lands on the same stream passed into private ownerhip are inferior to the riparian rights attached to such lands.231 However, appropriations made on such lands before riparian lands on the same stream passed into private ownership are superior to the riparian rights attached to such lands,232 provided that, at least in the case of an appropriation on Federal public domain lands, the appropriation was made before the riparian's settlement on the land. If the appropriation was made before the time title to the riparian land passed into private ownership, but after the riparian's settlement occurred, the appropriation (by anyone other than the United States) is inferior to the riparian right. For the California Supreme Court has said that:233 While it is true that as against the United States the inception of the right of a [riparian] settler relates only to the date of filing application, actual settlement gives to such settler a preference as to such filing, so that, as to subsequent parties other than the United States, the inception of the right is the date of settlement. In view of the fact that the rights of both the appropriator and the settler are based upon priority in time of taking the initial step, actual settlement upon the land with the intention of subsequently acquiring a completed title by patent is sufficient, we think, to create an equitable right in the land so settled upon by a bona fide settler as to cut off all intervening rights, including those of a subsequent appropri- ator. The right acquired by a prior appropriator relates back to the first step taken, and we are of the opinion that the right of a settler should likewise date back to the first step taken, which in this case was actual settlement, rather than to the intermediate step of filing a formal application in the land office. 230Cave v. Tyler, 133 Cal. 556, 570, 65 Pac. 1089 (1901); Holmes v. Noy, 186 Cal. 231, 234-235, 199 Pac. 325 (1921); San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & In. Co. v. Worswick, 187 Cal. 674, 683-685, 203 Pac. 999 (1922). 231 Federal public domain: Barrows v. Fox, 98 Cal. 63, 64-67, 32 Pac. 811 (1893); Witherill v. Brehm, 74 Cal. App. 286, 298-299, 240 Pac. 529 (1925). See Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. Mayberry, 88 Cal. 68, 74-75, 25 Pad 101 (1891). See also Wood v. Etiwanda Water Co., 122 Cal. 152, 158-159, 54 Pac. 726 (1898). State lands: Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 368, 374, 4 Pac. 919 (1884). See also Shenandoah Min. & Mill. Co. v. Morgan, 106 Cal. 409, 416, 39 Pac. 802 (1895). 232 Federal public domain: Cave v. Crafts, 53 Cal. 135, 138 (1878); Osgood v. El Dorado Water & Deep Gravel Min. Co., 56 Cal. 571, 578-581 (1880);Haight v. Costanich, 184 Cal. 426, 430, 194 Pac. 26 (1920). See Farley v. Spring Valley Min. & In. Co., 58 Cal. 142, 143-144 (1881). State lands: Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 373-374, 4 Pac. 919 (1884). 233Pabst v. Finmand, 190 Cal. 124, 131, 211 Pac. 11 (1922).

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