Laserfiche WebLink
<br />through common ownership, even if such land is located within the <br />watershed of the stream. Miller & Lux v. James (1919) 180 Cal. 38, <br />51-52. Similarly, ifland is severed and becomes noncontiguous to the <br />water source, the property loses its riparian character. Anaheim <br />Union Water Co. v. Fuller (1907) 150 Cal. 327,331. However, property <br />that overlies the subsurface portion of a stream which is not contigu- <br />ous to the surface water does have riparian rights to the subsurface <br />portion of the stream, but not to surface flow. Peabody v. City of <br />Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 375-376. <br />The second criteria is that the "riparian right extends only to <br />the smallest tract held under one title in the chain of title leading to <br />the present owner." Rancho Santa Margarita, page 529. The "source <br />of title" rule means that the riparian parcel may never become larger <br />than the original parcel size, but may become smaller through the <br />severance of riparian rights from noncontiguous parcels when a <br />riparian tract is subdivided. Title Ins. and Trust Co. v. Miller & Lux, <br />Inc. (1920) 183 Cal. 71, 82. <br />Finally, the land must be within the watershed of the water- <br />course. Rancho Santa Margarita, pages 528-529; Anaheim Union, <br />page 330. Property is within the watershed if the water used upon <br />the land, or rain runoff from the land, naturally runs to the stream. <br />Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co. (1915) 170 Cal. 425, <br />430-431. Thus, any unused water will return to the watercourse for <br />the benefit of downstream riparian water users- <br />The principal reasons for the'rule confining riparian rights to that <br />part of lands bordering on the stream which are within the water- <br />shed are, that where the water is used on such land it will, after <br />such lise, return to the stream, so far as it is not consumed. . . . <br />Anaheim Union, page 330. <br /> <br />One California Supreme Court decision held that federally owned <br />national forest land can have riparian rights. In re Rights to Water of <br />Hallett Creek Stream System (1988) 44 Cal.3d 448, 467. However, the <br />State Board in this statutory adjudication proceeding may subordinate <br />the United States' unexercised riparian rights to appropriative and <br />riparian rights currently being used. Hallett Creek, page 471. <br />HofdelS of a riparian right Riparian rights can be held both by <br />governmental agencies and by private individuals. Thus, both the <br />United States and California can have riparian rights to water running <br />through lands they own4 Palmer v. Railroad Commission (1914) 167 <br />Cal. 163, 168. However, the existence of federal riparian rights in <br /> <br />4 Rogers and Nichols. Water for California. 1967, ~ 167, pages 228-230. <br /> <br />34 CALIFORNIA WATER <br />