OCR Text |
Show INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE DUAL WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS 215 well justify legislative action directed toward preventing the reoccurrence of such inequitable results.261 One concurring justice said, among other things, that: ... a provision not objectionable on its face may be adjudged unconstitu- tional because of its effect in operation upon a showing of a fixed and continuous policy of unjust and discriminatory application by the officials in charge of its administration.262 Another concurring justice said: . .. the action taken by the Water Commission may not be within a valid exercise of the police power, and thus constitutes an unconstitutional application of the law.263 This case did not involve any consideration of the 1963 legislation. Applications for the water uses in controversy were initiated before it was enacted. Oklahoma A statute passed by the first Oklahoma Territorial legislative Assembly provided, among other things, that water running in a definite natural stream might be used by the landowner as long as it remains there, but that he might not prevent the natural flow of the stream nor pursue nor pollute it.264 This was copied from the early statute of the Territory of Dakota cited under "North Dakota," above. This statute was quoted or cited in several decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court,265 which in numerous cases decided questions relating to various aspects of the riparian right, and of the appropriative right, but none involving conflicts between riparian claimants on the one hand and appropriators on the other.266 The Oklahoma territorial and State legislatures had enacted various water appropriation statutes.267 The 1963 Oklahoma legislature made the first move in the field of interdoctrinal relationships. The early 1890 statute, unchanged since enact- ment, was amended in several vital respects.268 Pursuant to the amendment, water running in a definite natural stream may be used by the landowner for domestic purposes as long as it remains there, but he may not prevent the 261157 N. W. (2d) at 733-734. This is discussed in Bard, D. F., & Beck, R. E., "An Institutional Overview of the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission: Its Operation and Setting," 46 N. Dak. Law Rev. 31, 42 (1969); Case Note, 4 Land & Water Law Rev. 185 (1969). i62157N.W. (2d)at734. M3Id. M4Ten. Okla. Stat. 1890, § 4162, Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 60 (Supp. 1961). 265Broody v. Furray, 163 Okla. 204, 205, 21 Pac. (2d) 770 (1933); Grand-Hydro v. Grand River Dam Authority, 192 Okla. 693, 695, 139 Pac. (2d) 798 (1943); Smith v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 197 Okla. 499, 501,172 Pac. (2d) 1002 (1946). 366Hutchins, Wells A., "The Oklahoma Law of Water Rights," pp. 13-22 (1955). 267See Terr. Okla. Laws 1897, ch. XIX; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82 (1970). 268Okla. Sess. Laws 1963, ch. 205, § 1. |