| OCR Text |
Chapter 37. OREGON CONTENTS Page 1. Development of Oregon Water Law___________________________ 619 2. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control- 620 2.1 Administration of Water Rights_______________________ 620 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts_____________________ 622 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities___ 623 3. Surface Waters____________________________________________ 625 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights__________________________ 625 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights__________________________ 628 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers________________________ 629 3.4 Loss of Rights_____________________________________ 630 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds______________ 631 3.6 Springs__________________________________________ 632 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters_____________________________ 632 4. Ground Water____________________________________________ 633 Publications Available________________________________________ 635 DISCUSSION 1. Development op Oregon Water Law Oregon is now an appropriation doctrine State, although early water law cases recognized riparian rights.1 The common law rule of riparian rights, whereby the riparian owner had the right to the flow of a stream without an unreasonable detention or diminution of its flow, was established in 1876 by the Oregon Supreme Court.2 However, even during the period in which decisions of the Oregon court were recognizing traditional riparian water rights, in other decisions the court began to express some reservation about the doc- trine.3 The theme of these cases was that beneficial use should be the test of a water right, and that unless a riparian owner used and benefited substantially from the water he would not be allowed to prevent use of the water by others claiming under an appropria- tion doctrine.4 The Act of Congress of 1866 as amended in 1870 recognized rights to the use of water acquired on the public domain through prior appropriation where local customs, laws, and decisions acknowledged such rights.5 The Oregon Supreme Court construed the Act of 1866 as a recognition of preexisting rights acquired by prior appropria- tion and to be a recognition of an assent to the appropriation of water in contravention of the riparian doctrine.6 In 1898, the court observed that the riparian doctrine had been modified extensively 1 See, generally, Hutchlns, The Common-Law Riparian Doctrine in Oregon: Legisla- tive and Judicial Modification, 26 Oreg. L. Rev. 193 (1957). 2 Taylor v. Welch, 6 Or. 198 (1876). »Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Pac. 732 (1908), 98 Pac. 1083 (1909), 102 Pac. 728 (1909). *Id., see also Norwood v. Eastern Or. Land Co.. 112 Or. 106, 227 Pac. 1111 (1924). "14 Stat. 353. sec. 9 (1866) ; 16 Stat. 218 (1870). «Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Pac. 732 (1908), 98 Pac. 1083 (1909), 102 Pac. 728 (1909). 619 |
