Lux v. Haggin
69 Cal. 255; 10 P. 674 (1886)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of riparian rights, which grants owners of land bordering a watercourse the right to the natural flow of its water, is the law of California. A non-riparian appropriator cannot divert water to the detriment of a downstream riparian proprietor whose title predates the appropriation without providing just compensation.
Facts:
- Charles Lux, Henry Miller, and James C. Crocker (plaintiffs) were owners of large tracts of land.
- A natural watercourse known as Buena Vista Slough, originating from the Kern River, flowed through the plaintiffs' lands.
- The water from this slough naturally irrigated the plaintiffs' lands, making them valuable for grazing and agricultural purposes.
- The Kern River Land and Canal Company (defendant) constructed a large canal on public land upstream from the plaintiffs' property.
- The defendant's canal diverted a substantial quantity of water from the Kern River for the purpose of irrigating distant, non-riparian lands.
- This diversion prevented the water of the Kern River from flowing into the Buena Vista Slough and reaching the plaintiffs' lands, thereby depriving them of their natural water supply.
- While the defendant's canals were under construction at great expense, the plaintiffs had knowledge of the works but did not object to them at that time.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Lux, Henry Miller, and James C. Crocker initiated this action in the state trial court against James B. Haggin and others.
- Through dismissals and amendments, the Kern River Land and Canal Company became the sole defendant.
- The plaintiffs sought a decree enjoining the defendant from diverting waters from the Kern River.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, the Kern River Land and Canal Company.
- The trial court subsequently denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of California from both the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-riparian appropriator's diversion of water from a natural watercourse, for a beneficial use on non-riparian land, violate the common law property rights of a downstream riparian landowner whose title was acquired from the government before the appropriation?
Opinions:
Majority - McKinstry, J.
Yes, the diversion violates the common law rights of the downstream riparian landowner. California's adoption of the common law in 1850 established that owners of land bordering a stream have a vested property right to the water's natural flow, which is part and parcel of the soil itself. This riparian right is superior to any claim by a subsequent, non-riparian appropriator. The court reasoned that when the government, whether federal or state, grants land, it also conveys the common-law riparian rights attached to that land unless they are expressly reserved. The plaintiffs acquired title to their lands from the state before the defendant's appropriation, thereby vesting them with these riparian rights. While the doctrine of prior appropriation governs disputes between users on public land, it does not extinguish the riparian rights of private landowners. The court also held that Civil Code § 1422, which states 'The rights of riparian proprietors are not affected,' protects these rights against claims made under the code's appropriation procedures. Finally, while water may be taken for a public use like irrigating 'farming neighborhoods,' this can only be done through the power of eminent domain with just compensation, which was not provided here.
Dissenting - Ross, J.
No, the diversion does not violate the landowner's rights under California law. The English common law doctrine of riparian rights is fundamentally unsuited to the arid conditions of California and should not be applied where the reason for the rule fails. From its inception, California developed a legal system based on the doctrine of prior appropriation for beneficial use, which was sanctioned by custom, court decisions, and state and federal legislation. This system of appropriation became the controlling law for waters on public lands. Therefore, all government grants of public land should be interpreted as being subject to this established doctrine. Civil Code § 1410 explicitly confirms that water may be acquired by appropriation, and the saving clause in § 1422 for 'riparian proprietors' should be narrowly construed to protect only those with pre-existing rights from Spanish or Mexican grants, not to import the entire, unsuitable English common law system.
Dissenting - Myrick, J.
No, the diversion is permissible. First, the 1850 act adopting the common law of England was not intended to establish rules for water appropriation for irrigation, a practice nonexistent in England. Second, the plaintiffs' lands are 'swamp and overflowed' lands, granted by Congress to the state for the express purpose of reclamation—that is, to be drained and made fit for cultivation. It is fundamentally inconsistent for the plaintiffs to now claim a right to have water continue to flow onto lands that the government's grant intended to have de-watered. The plaintiffs took their title subject to the state's power and policy of reclamation, which is consistent with allowing upstream appropriations that would reduce the water flow.
Analysis:
Lux v. Haggin is the foundational case in California water law, establishing the state's 'dual system' of water rights that recognizes both riparian and appropriative doctrines. The decision cemented the primacy of riparian rights, holding that they attach to private property at the moment it is patented from the government and are superior to any subsequent appropriations. This ruling created significant legal and economic challenges for the development of water resources for non-riparian lands, shaping decades of water conflicts and legislation. It forced later appropriators, including cities and irrigation districts, to either purchase or condemn riparian rights, profoundly influencing the structure of California's water infrastructure and economy.
Unlock the full brief for Lux v. Haggin