OCR Text |
Show 10 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE and redeclared in 1903 as applicable to lands passing into private ownership before enactment of 1889 appropriation statute, (c) Decisions in 1903-04 tended to eliminate much of advantage of location of lands claiming unused riparian rights, (d) Decision in 1966 held that the 1889 appropriation statute did not substitute prior appropriation doctrine in place of the riparian doctrine; therefore lands passing into private ownership between the 1889 statute and the 1895 statute are still subject to the riparian doctrine, and earlier decisions tempered as to lands claiming unused riparian rights. The court indicated that a riparian right "may be superior" to an appropriative right if the riparian land passed into private ownership before the 1895 statute, but an appropriator may be liable for injury to a riparian right "if, but only if, the harmful appropriation is unreasonable in respect to the [riparian] proprietor." The court added that "if riparian lands passed into private ownership after April 4, 1895, a competing appropriative right "outranks the riparian right under the facts of the present case."47 Status: Doctrine recognized, but the time that riparian lands passed into private ownership is important, as against appropriative rights, and the advantage of unused riparian rights as against appropriative rights has been reduced. Nevada (a) Riparian water-use doctrine discussed in early cases; (b) definitely recognized in 1872; (c) repudiated in 1885. (d) Some riparian rights were adjudicated during the 1872-85 period before the repudiation of such rights in 1885.48 Status: After being recognized for 13 years in Nevada, the doctrine was specifically repudiated in 1885 and has remained so. 47(a) Clark v. Cambridge & Arapahoe In. & Improvement Co., 45 Nebr. 798, 806, 64 N.W 239 (1895). (b) Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 339, 342, 93 N.W. 78 (1903); Meng v. Coffee, 67 Nebr. 500, 511-512, 93 N.W. 713 (1903). (c) McCookIn. & Water Power Co. v. Crews, 70 Nebr. 109, 96 N.W. 996 (1903), 102 N.W. 249 (1905) Cline v. Stock, 71 Nebr. 70, 98 N.W. 454 (1904), 102 N.W. 265 (1905). (d) Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 147, 141 N.W. (2d) 738, 742, 743, 745 (1966), modified, 180 Nebr. 569, 144 N.W. (2d) 209 (1966); Brummundv. Vogel, 184 Nebr. 415, 168 N.W. (2d) 24 (1969), appears to have added some uncertainty regarding the status of domestic use. 48 (a) Lobdell v. Simpson, 2 Nev. 274, 277, 278, 90 Am. Dec. 537 (1866). (b) Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249, 256, 257, 260-261, 265, 285 (1872). (c) Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev. 78, 84-88, 6 Pac. 442 (1885);Reno Smelting, Mill. & Reduction Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269, 275-276, 280, 282, 21 Pac. 317 (1889). (d) A Federal circuit court said that final and unreversed decrees of riparian rights became res adjudicata of the subject matter in dispute as between the parties and their successors in interest. The court refused to allow any one of the riparian parties to the suit to claim any priority over the others based upon the Nevada court's recognition of appropriative rights and repudiation of the riparian rights doctrine in 1885. Union Mill&Min. Co. v.Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 85,92,115-116 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897). |