OCR Text |
Show 620 OREGON in neighboring States in favor of a doctrine whereby the water right was obtained by the first appropriator who took the water for a useful purpose and who thereby acquired a superior right to use the water against other claimants.7 The court further held, in 1902, that an appropriator of water on the public domain acquires a prior right against all persons acquiring subsequent rights, whether as appropriators or riparian owners.8 In 1909, the Oregon Legislature rejected the doctrine of riparian rights and enacted legislation which implemented the appropriation doctrine as the exclusive method of acquiring water rights in the State.9 The statute, of course, provided for the protection of prior existing vested rights.10 However, the act restricted vested riparian rights to the quantity of water which was being beneficially used at the time the act was passed, or which was placed to use within a reasonable time thereafter.11 The Oregon Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the water code as it defined and limited the riparian right. The court ob- served that a State may change its method of obtaining water rights as it sees fit, holding "that a riparian proprietor cannot lay claim to the undiminished flow of a stream without actual use.12 2. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control 2.1 Administration of Water Rights a. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES In Oregon, the State engineer has been delegated the principal responsibility for the administration and control of water rights in the State. The State engineer is appointed by the Governor with the approval of the water resources board.13 His duties encompass primarily three areas of water right regulation. These include the administration of statutory controls over appropriation, adjudica- tion, and distribution of water rights. The water resources board also exercises powers which implement legislative policy regarding the utilization of the State's water resources. For example, if the State engineer is of the opinion that a proposed appropriation may ad- versely affect the public interest, he refers the application to the water resources board to make a determination of whether or not the proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest. How- ever, the principal functions of the board involve the formulation of a State water resource policy relating to the use and control of the water resources of the State. Once the board adopts a state- ment of water policy, other State agencies are required to abide by it in carrying out their powers and duties. Thus, the board's policy i Carson v. Gentner, 33 Or. 512. 52 Pac. 506 (1898). *Britt v. Reed, 42 Or. 76, 70 Pac. 1029 (1902). 8 Oregon Revised Statutes, sees. 537.010 to .990. For convenience, the Oregsn statutes will hereinafter be cited by sec. or ch. ns. only. io Sees. 537.120 and 539.010. "Sec. 539.010. 12 In re Willow Greek, 74 Or. 592, 144 Pac. 505 (1914). See also, Norwooi v. Eastern Or. Land Co.. 112 Or. 106, 227 Pac. 1111 (1924). ^Sec. 536.010. |