OCR Text |
Show 12 ORGANIZATION that in order to achieve any kind of economic development, water would have to be diverted and utilized for purposes of extracting and refining minerals, irrigating and growing crops, and for con- sumption by individuals and communities. So water was diverted from the streams and applied to all uses which were beneficial in promoting economic development. Water uses were accorded priority as of the date that the use com- menced, so that each user had a right superior to all later users but inferior to all earlier users. This concept of priority in accordance with the date that the use commenced gave birth to the term "prior appropriation" to describe the appropriation system. The practical effect was to encourage early water uses for beneficial purposes be- cause the settlers knew their livelihood depended on water uses and that if they delayed initiation of their intended uses others might appropriate the dependable water supply, and they would be left with junior rights which would be satisfied only during periods of high streamflow. When appropriation practices and customs first commenced, nearly all of the land was public domain of the United States, although Congress promptly enacted legislation approving appropriation practices. However, some State courts upheld riparian claims against appropriation uses, and some States initially embraced the riparian system of water rights. But the riparian doctrine was later displaced either in whole or in part by the appropriation doctrine-even though this transition occurred rather recently in a few States. There is, however, one exception. Hawaii, which has a unique system of water rights, is the only Western State which has not adopted an appropriation system. As the settlement and development of the West progressed, more and more people used water from a common source of supply, and problems developed among the users when there wasn't enough water to satisfy all demands made on the streams. Even where the priority dates could be determined, much uncertainty existed with respect to the amount of water appropriated. Each appropriator was entitled to the amount of water which he initially had diverted and applied to beneficial use, but many users had expanded their operations and enlarged their water use, and there was no record defining the amount or extent of the various appropriations. Thus, as these disputes arose, individuals were forced to litigate their water right claims in the courts. While the court was an ade- quate institution to resolve the dispute between the parties before it, the decision rendered was not binding on other users of the stream who were not parties to the litigation. A water user might be re- quired to defend his right a number of times against claims of differ- ent individuals, since there was no other way that he could obtain the water to which he was legally entitled. Such repeated litigation was aggravated by another factor. Since there was no type of administrative regulation to determine whether a stream was fully appropriated, there was nothing to prevent addi- tional appropriators from attempting to initiate a right on a water source by simply diverting water from the stream. Even when a stream was "over-appropriated," and litigation was in progress be- |