Riparian Rights Flashcards
Surface water
Water that squanders itself (rainwater, snowmelt). No obligation to accept flow (can barricade oneself against floods)
Watercourse
Defined channel. Subject to riparian rights (under CL)
Percolating water
Underground water that trickles/oozes (no defined channel)
Riparian land
land at the border of land and water
Riparian rights
Mostly gone under the Water Act. Natural right that comes with the land. Includes support/accretion
RR - Ordinary use
take water for an quantity for domestic/stockwatering purpose, even if you exhaust water
RR - Extraordinary use
Can take reasonable amounts for industrial purposes (no exhausting the water)
RR - flow
If you are downstream, entitled to a flow not substantially altered
Access
right both to and from water
Water Act
stream water goes to the government. they give out licenses. if no license, can use unrecorded water for domestic purposes
WA - domestic purposes
household use, sanitation, fire prevention, domestic animals, small gardens
WA - groundwater
water below surface. For WA to apply, must be an order made by the LGiC
WA - stream
natural watercourse including underground, lake, river…
WA - title
vested in the government except if a license given
WA - prescription
no rights to divert or use given through prescription
WA - divert
not an offence to divert unrecorded water for domestic purposes, but no right to do so (sword not shield)
WA - license to divert
granted for the specific location and amount. can’t go further
WA - offence
can’t interfere with water that someone has a license to
WA - fire
can divert water to extinguish a fire
Johnson v Anderson
D’s divert water (no license to divert). P’s using water for domestic purposes. No license. D’s liable, because RR still exist to protect against unlawful diversion (but if someone has a license, tough luck)
Schillinger v Williamson
P downstream, had license for water, but was diverting from a different area than he was licensed to do. D put silt in water upstream. P claims nuisance. Fails - nuisance is a balance of interest. P was acting illegally. No RR to divert water, no RR to extraordinary use.
Steadman v Erickson
P using water for domestic purposes. D contaminated water. Is this a nuisance due to RR? No, RR are gone. But he can claim nuisance under the WA (he was acting lawfully)
Summary
2 conflicting opinions (RR gone or not? - Johnson says no, S/S say yes.). Regardless of RR, can still sue for nuisance if using water lawfully
