OCR Text |
Show INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE DUAL WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS 201 the expedient of ignoring or specifically repudiating the riparian doctrine in favor of one founded on the rock of priority in time of diverting water and putting it to beneficial use on land, regardless of contiguity of the land to the source of water supply-the appropriation doctrine. This was accomplished more readily in the generally more arid States than in those that contained considerable areas in which crops grew well with the use of precipitation alone. These latter States recognized both doctrines of water law. In the dual-system States, the water rights of lands that bordered streams were superior to those of noncontiguous lands solely because of their location. Under the riparian doctrine this location gave them prior claims to the water. With development of the country and growing competition for water for irrigation purposes, it was inevitable that controversies should arise between these antagonistic groups-owners of lands riparian to a stream, and persons who wished to extend use of the waters to areas perhaps far from the channel and thereby to increase the irrigated area and the usefulness of the water supply. The appropriation doctrine proved to be better suited to the needs of a pioneer arid region than did the riparian doctrine. There is no doubt that it contributed far more to the building up of the West than its rival could account for. On the other hand, it is equally without doubt that no particular magic is inherent in the term "appropriative right"-that "appropriation" is not necessarily synonymous with best possible use of water, and "riparian" with waste. As a matter of fact, although waste of water never has been compatible with the appropriative principle of beneficial use, trouble in certain exclusive appropriation doctrine areas has been experienced with early court decrees that awarded excessive quantities of water to early priorities. In general, efficient utilization of a limited water supply can be attained under either the riparian or the appropriation doctrine, provided the governing principles are adequately defined and applied and the serious problem of the unused riparian right adequately dealt with. Under these circumstances, efficient utilization should be able to contribute as much to the public welfare under one doctrine as under the other. The difficulty has been with those concepts of the riparian right that sanctioned inefficient and wasteful use of water, or indefinite holding of the right without putting the water to use even though some appropriator might be willing and able to use the water beneficially according to accepted standards. As said by the United States Supreme Court when discussing the former California situation: "Riparianism, pressed to the limits of its logic, enabled one to play dog-in-the-manger."202 202 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725, 751 (1950). |