PUB00109

• Year: 1995
• Title: Califormia Water
• CWCB Section: Interstate & Federal
• Author: Arthur L. Littlewort
• Description: History, overview, and explanation of water rights and legislation of California
• Publications - Doc Type: Historical

Reasonable use is a question of fact
depending upon a case by case determi-
nation.

A riparian right may not be exercised on
nonriparian land.

38 CALIFORNIA WATER

plaintiff had protested the defendant city's proposed storage of water
during high-flow periods, since this upstream appropriation would
damage his riparian use of water for leaching salts. The court held
that the downstream riparian's use of stream flow was an uurea-
sonable use of water that confficted with the police powers of the
state in conservation of its waters. Peabody, page 369. "The rule of
reasonableness" therefore allowed the appropriation of water for
domestic uses to prevail over the riparian's claim to the full flow of
the stream. Peabody, pages 367-371.
In Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water District (1967) 67 Cal.2d
132, the court balanced the social utility of the municipal use of
water against the use of water for the accumulation of gravel. In
Joslin, the court reviewed a dispute between an appropriator of
water for municipal purposes and a riparian owner who relied on
the flow of the stream to deliver gravel to his land for use in a busi-
ness. Tbe court held that tbe use of water for gravel transport was
unreasonable as a matter of law under Article X, Section 2, and that
no right attaches to unreasonable use. Joslin, page 141.
The courts, including the Joslin court, have uniformly deter-
mined that reasonableness is a question of fact depending on a case-
by-case determination. Tulare, page 567. Beneficial uses must be
compared to determine the advantages of competing claims to a
stream flow that cannot satisfy all needs. Imperial Irr. Dist. v. State
Water Resources Control Bd. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 548, 570. The
reasonableness of a riparian use cannot be determined without con-
sidering its effect "on the needs of those in the stream system," pre-
sumably including appropriators as well as other riparians. Moreover,
reasonable use cannot be made "in vacuo isolated from statewide
consideration of transcendent importance." Long Valley, page 354.

Limitations on Exercise of Riparian Right

Use of the water. Riparians are limited in the method and location
of use of water. The water may be used on or in connection with any
portion of the riparian property, but it cannot be used off the prop-
erty. People v. Shirokow (1980) 26 Cal.3d 301, 307. A riparian's use
of water on nonriparian land would result in a trespass upon the
rights of the lower riparians. Moore v. California Oregon Power Co.
(1943) 22 Cal.2d 725, 734.
Additionally, riparian rights do not extend to the use of riparian
water on other riparian lands, even if the tract is riparian to the
same stream. Parker v. Swett (1922) 188 Cal. 474, 479. Neither do
riparians have the right to injure other riparians by selling water