309:
common law and riparian rights or give appropriative rights supremacy. In the end, the court recognized both water rights systems, but decided that appropriative rights were secondary to riparian rights. The ruling "created chaos by shackling the state with two fundamentally incompatible water allocation systems." Additionally the original definition of "reasonable" water use under
English common law was changed. The court decided that water could be used for commercial and agricultural purposes as long as the use did not negatively affect other riparian landowners. This broadening of the "reasonable" use definition meant that riparian land owners could now use more water than previously allowed.
31:
266:, through Buena Vista Slough and into Lake Tulare. Haggin, on the other hand, argued that the slough was indistinguishable from swampland, and that the water present in the slough was merely overflow from Lake Tulare. On November 3, 1881 Judge Brundage ruled that "no continuous or defined channel" existed in Buena Vista swamp, and therefore Miller and Lux were not considered riparian land owners. Judge Brundage also included in his opinion that irrigation by means of appropriation was a "natural necessity" in the state of California.
226:. Based on their land ownership, Miller and Lux claimed riparian rights to the natural flow of the river. Realizing that the Central Valley area was prone to drought, they developed an extensive canal system to irrigate their lands from the slough. By 1877 upstream water appropriation by the Kern County Land and Canal Company had dried out Buena Vista Slough completely. Close to 10,000 head of Miller and Lux's cattle perished that year as a result.
300:
Buena Vista Slough, stating that "The owners of land by or through which a watercourse naturally and usually flows have a right of property in the waters of the stream." Justice McKinstry also acknowledged public use of the water; appropriation by irrigation companies or irrigation districts, he conceded, was permitted with just compensation.
299:
The court upheld the validity and primacy of riparian rights by a vote of four to three. The majority opinion, by
Justice McKinstry, was joined by Justices McKee, Sharpstein, and Thornton. Justices Ross, Morrison, and Myrick dissented. Justice McKinstry affirmed Miller and Lux's riparian rights along
188:
In 1855, California also adopted the right of prior appropriation. Appropriative rights were based on a first come, first served philosophy. This second system of water rights was developed for miners and farmers who did not own riparian land. The first to appropriate the water's use had rights to
176:
system was adopted by
California in 1850. With regards to water rights, English common law specifies that landowners have the right to the water that runs through or adjacent to their property for reasonable household purposes as long as their use does not interfere with the rights of other riparian
277:
thirty miles from where nature had placed it, making a garden of what nature had made a desert and making a desert of their swampland." In other words, Miller and Lux suggested a violation of their property rights; they had purchased land naturally containing water, and Haggin's upstream diversions
261:
Miller and Lux first filed suit against Haggin in 1879. The important issue in this case was determining what constitutes a watercourse. In order for Miller and Lux to be riparian landowners, they had to prove that the slough was in fact a watercourse. Their main argument was that the slough was an
192:
These two systems of water rights were at odds with one another. Appropriative water rights granted the first to claim the water's use complete rights to it. Riparian water rights established that use of the water was an uncontested right that came with the land and did not have to be shared with
308:
Lux v. Haggin was a historic case in the development of water rights in
California. During this time, the population was rapidly increasing and appropriation of water would soon become a necessity. The decision was important because it gave the court a chance to either continue to uphold English
286:
The overarching issue in Lux v. Haggin was whether the court would uphold
English common law riparian rights (even though they were poorly suited to California's Mediterranean climate), institute the primacy of appropriative water rights, or create an entirely new system of water rights.
189:
it. All those who subsequently established their claim, could only appropriate water if their use did not interfere with the previously established water use. Appropriative rights did not limit the amount of water that could be claimed.
290:
A rehearing by the
California Supreme Court in 1886 addressed the question: "Can a private corporation divert the waters of a watercourse, and thereby deprive the riparian proprieters of all use of the same, without just compensation?"
213:
were two German immigrants who met in San
Francisco where both had established successful butcher shops. They became business partners and started raising cattle for their shops. In 1868, they began to purchase land in
236:
Haggin was a wealthy socialite, lawyer, and business man who arrived in
California during the gold rush. Among his business ventures was the Kern County Land and Canal Company, which was located along the
273:
In 1884, Miller and Lux appealed the 1881 ruling to the
California Supreme Court. In this case, Miller and Lux addressed their property rights. They argued that Haggin's appropriations "carried the
278:
had caused the water on their land to dry up. In response, the court agreed with Miller and Lux's appeal for riparian rights and overturned the lower court's ruling by a four to three decision.
185:
interpretation of reasonable household purposes meant domestic uses and small scale subsistence farming. Other landowners whose properties do not have water, have no right to use it .
363:
Hanak, Ellen, et al(2011). "Managing
California's Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation." Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 2011. Retrieved on 2012-4-15. (
338:
399:
Freyfogle, Eric T. (1985-1986). "Lux v Haggin and the Common Law Burdens of Modern Water Law." University of Colorado Literature Review |volume=18 |pages=485
505:
421:
Igler, David (2001). Industrial Cowboys: Miller & Lux and the Transformation of the Far West, 1850-1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. (
164:. Decided by a vote of four to three in the Supreme Court of California, the ruling held that appropriative rights were secondary to riparian rights.
480:
510:
78:
Riparian water rights are superior to appropriative water rights. Appropriation of water for public use is permitted with just compensation.
485:
426:
318:
245:
for agricultural irrigation of his large landholdings in Kern County. By 1877, Haggin had diverted so much water from the
193:
non-riparian land owners. The case of Lux v. Haggin clarified which system of water rights would prevail in California.
490:
495:
36:
161:
262:
integral part of a major water system with a clearly defined waterway: water flowed down from the Sierras to
241:
and upstream from Miller and Lux's property. Haggin used appropriative water rights to divert water from the
54:
Charles Lux et al., Appellants, v. James B. Haggin et al. The Kern River Land and Canal Company, Respondent
210:
178:
157:
231:
500:
101:
219:
91:
447:
422:
460:
105:
364:
474:
215:
206:
64:
274:
263:
246:
242:
238:
223:
182:
173:
156:, 69 Cal. 255; 10 P. 674; (1886), is a historic case in the conflict between
30:
104:, Samuel B. McKee, John R. Sharpstein, James D. Thornton,
442:"69 Cal. 255; 10 P. 674; 1886 Cal". LexisNexis Academic.
339:"A State of Thirst: California's Ongoing Water Crisis"
365:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211EHR.pdf
141:
133:
125:
117:
112:
97:
87:
82:
72:
59:
49:
44:
23:
249:that it no longer flowed to Buena Vista Slough.
319:Digitized Court Documents on Internet Archive
8:
437:
435:
395:
393:
16:California court case on water rights (1886)
391:
389:
387:
385:
383:
381:
379:
377:
375:
373:
20:
359:
357:
355:
202:Plaintiffs: Henry Miller and Charles Lux
417:
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
405:
330:
456:
445:
7:
222:, a swampy area that was fed by the
506:History of Kern County, California
14:
177:land owners. These are known as
29:
481:1886 in United States case law
1:
511:United States water case law
129:McKee, Sharpstein, Thornton
37:Supreme Court of California
527:
162:appropriative water rights
486:California state case law
77:
28:
137:Ross, joined by Morrison
45:Decided April 26, 1886
179:riparian water rights
270:Lux v. Haggin (1884)
258:Lux v. Haggin (1881)
232:James Ben Ali Haggin
491:Water in California
253:History of the case
102:Elisha W. McKinstry
496:1886 in California
220:Buena Vista Slough
108:, Milton H. Myrick
98:Associate Justices
92:Robert F. Morrison
455:Missing or empty
149:
148:
518:
465:
464:
458:
453:
451:
443:
439:
430:
419:
400:
397:
368:
361:
350:
349:
347:
345:
335:
83:Court membership
67:
33:
32:
21:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
517:
516:
515:
471:
470:
469:
468:
454:
444:
441:
440:
433:
420:
403:
398:
371:
362:
353:
343:
341:
337:
336:
332:
327:
315:
306:
297:
284:
272:
260:
255:
235:
199:
181:. The English
170:
106:Erskine M. Ross
63:
40:
17:
12:
11:
5:
524:
522:
514:
513:
508:
503:
498:
493:
488:
483:
473:
472:
467:
466:
431:
401:
369:
351:
329:
328:
326:
323:
322:
321:
314:
313:External Links
311:
305:
302:
296:
293:
283:
280:
254:
251:
198:
195:
169:
166:
147:
146:
143:
139:
138:
135:
131:
130:
127:
123:
122:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
99:
95:
94:
89:
85:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
70:
69:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
42:
41:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
523:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
487:
484:
482:
479:
478:
476:
462:
449:
438:
436:
432:
428:
427:0-520-22658-5
424:
418:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
406:
402:
396:
394:
392:
390:
388:
386:
384:
382:
380:
378:
376:
374:
370:
366:
360:
358:
356:
352:
340:
334:
331:
324:
320:
317:
316:
312:
310:
303:
301:
294:
292:
288:
281:
279:
276:
271:
267:
265:
259:
252:
250:
248:
244:
240:
234:
233:
227:
225:
221:
217:
212:
208:
204:
203:
196:
194:
190:
186:
184:
180:
175:
167:
165:
163:
159:
155:
154:
153:Lux v. Haggin
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:Case opinions
111:
107:
103:
100:
96:
93:
90:
88:Chief Justice
86:
81:
76:
71:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
43:
39:
38:
27:
24:Lux v. Haggin
22:
19:
342:. Retrieved
333:
307:
304:Significance
298:
289:
285:
269:
268:
257:
256:
229:
228:
211:Henry Miller
205:
201:
200:
191:
187:
172:The English
171:
152:
151:
150:
53:
35:
18:
230:Defendant:
216:Kern County
207:Charles Lux
126:Concurrence
68:; 10 P. 674
65:69 Cal. 255
60:Citation(s)
501:Kern River
475:Categories
457:|url=
325:References
275:Kern River
264:Kern River
247:Kern River
243:Kern River
239:Kern River
224:Kern River
183:common law
174:common law
168:Background
121:McKinstry
448:cite web
295:Decision
158:riparian
118:Majority
197:Parties
142:Dissent
134:Dissent
73:Holding
425:
344:May 8,
218:along
145:Myrick
282:Issue
461:help
423:ISBN
346:2012
209:and
160:and
477::
452::
450:}}
446:{{
434:^
404:^
372:^
354:^
463:)
459:(
429:)
367:)
348:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.