## Facts

- Plaintiffs Charles Lux and associates (Miller & Lux) owned extensive ranch lands bordering the Kern River and Buena Vista Slough in Kern County, claiming riparian rights to the stream’s natural flow.
- Defendants James B. Haggin and the Kern River Land and Canal Company constructed upstream canals and diversion works to take large quantities of Kern River water for irrigation and development on non-riparian lands.
- Plaintiffs alleged the upstream diversions substantially reduced the river’s flow to their riparian lands, harming their ranching operations.
- Defendants asserted superior rights based on prior appropriation and statutory authorization for diversion and irrigation projects.
- Defendants also argued plaintiffs’ knowledge of the construction, delay in objecting, and defendants’ expenditures barred an injunction under laches, estoppel, acquiescence, and limitations principles.

## Issues

1. Whether riparian rights incident to ownership of land along a natural watercourse are superior to upstream appropriative claims so as to limit and restrain diversions that substantially diminish the flow to riparian lands.
2. Whether equitable defenses (laches, estoppel in pais, acquiescence) or statutes of limitation barred plaintiffs from obtaining injunctive relief against the diversions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that riparian owners have superior rights to the natural flow of the stream, subject to reasonable use by other riparian proprietors.
- The court held upstream appropriators may not lawfully diminish the flow to the injury of riparian owners without consent or payment of just compensation under lawful authority.
- The court rejected defendants’ laches, estoppel, and acquiescence defenses on the record presented; knowledge and silence during construction, without more, did not bar relief.
- The court recognized that a riparian owner may seek an injunction against threatened or ongoing unlawful diversion without first obtaining a damages judgment at law.
- The court treated applicable limitation periods as controlling in equity when pleaded and proved; mere delay short of the statutory period was not a standalone bar.

## Legal Principles

- Riparian rights are vested incidents of riparian landownership and are not dependent on prior diversion or actual use; they are protected against nonconsensual upstream diversions that materially impair the natural flow.
- Prior appropriation rights are subordinate to vested riparian rights unless the taking is authorized and just compensation is provided to riparian owners.
- Estoppel in pais requires, at minimum, reliance and prejudice induced by the riparian owner’s conduct; knowledge and failure to object to costly diversion works alone is insufficient.
- Where a statute of limitations governs equitable relief, delay shorter than the statutory period does not defeat the claim; if the statutory period has run, the defense must be pleaded.
- Acquiescence bars relief only when the riparian owner’s conduct shows assent to the defendant’s acts and the resulting injury.
- Injunctive relief is available to restrain unlawful diversions affecting riparian lands without a prerequisite legal action for damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that California’s common-law riparian doctrine gives riparian proprietors priority over upstream appropriators, allowing injunctions against diversions that substantially reduce the natural flow, while permitting lawful takings for public or similar uses only with just compensation; equitable defenses based on delay and silence failed absent the elements of estoppel or true acquiescence.


Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674 (Cal. 1886)