PUB00109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The doctrine of riparian rights originated in England and was adopted in California as part of the English common law. Appropriative rights arise from mining customs in early California. The dual system of riparian and appro- priative rights was established by the California Supreme Court in 1886. 30 CALIFORNIA WATER The riparian doctrine was applied in the eastern United States, eventually gaining recognition in some western states, including California. In 1850, the first legislature in California passed the Act of April 13, 1850 which stated that- The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, or the con- stitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state. Gin Chow, page 695. Because of this provision, several early court decisions recognized riparian rights hased upon private ownership of land. (Los Angeles v. Baldwin (1879) 53 Cal. 469; Pope v. Kinman (1879) 54 Cal. 3; Caue v. Crafts (1878) 53 Cal. 135.) Appropriative rights, recognized by the California Supreme Court in the early case ofIrwin u. Phillips (1855) 5 Cal. 140, 145-147, also existed at this time, primarily as a practice of miners. The cus- tom arose in mining camps on public lands because no one could own the land, and thus no one could get a riparian right. The California legislature regnlated water rights in 1872 through the enactment of Civil Code provisions, codifying customs such as prior appropriation. Civ. Code ~~ 1410-22 (1872, 1913); ~~ 141Ob-1413 have been re- pealed. Specifically, Civil Code Section 1410 stated that "[t]he right to use rurnring water flowing in a river or stream, or down a canyon or ravine may be acquired by appropriation." Civ. Code ~ 1410 (1872). Civil Code Section 1422 stated that "[t]he rights of riparian proprietors are not affected by the provisions of this title." Civ. Code ~ 1422 (1872); now repealed. Thus, battle lines were drawn between those opposing riparian rights (individuals without riparian land, typically miners operating on public domain property) and the riparians who worried about losing their water rights to upstream appropriators. Lux v. Haggin. The conflict between riparian and appropriative rights was addressed by the Supreme Court in 1886 in the cele- brated case of Lux u. Haggin (1886) 69 Cal. 255, when the court establlshed the dual doctrine of riparian and appropriative rights. The case involved the water rights of a downstream riparian rancher and an upstream appropriator on the Kern River, each claiming a superior right to the use of water. The court, recognizing both the riparian and appropriative doctrines, found that riparian rights had been recognized in California since the 1850 Act, which had "oper- ated a transfer" of California's water rights to riparian owners. Lux. page 338. The court explained that the United States held common law water rights in non-navigable watercourses that flowed through