OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE IN THE WEST 13 insofar as a riparian right may be asserted against claimants of appropriations under the water rights statute. South Dakota Riparian doctrine recognized (a) by Dakota Territorial statute in 1866, (b) by Territorial supreme court in 1888, affirmed by United States Supreme Court in 1890, and (c) reaffirmed by State supreme court in 1902 and 1910. (d) The legislature in 1955 generally limited vested riparian rights, for other than domestic purposes, to beneficial use prior to enactment or, if works were then under construction, within a reasonable time thereafter, (e) The State supreme court has sustained the constitutionality of the 1955 enactment.53 Status: The riparian doctrine was consistently recognized in a number of decisions of the supreme court beginning in the Territorial period; but in 1955 the legislature enacted a statute restricting vested riparian rights for nondomestic purposes to actual beneficial use of water at the time of enactment or shortly thereafter. Texas (a) During a 70-year period from the first recognition of the riparian doctrine in 1856 the Texas courts were concerned chiefly with the common law. (b) In 1926, by dictum, the supreme court placed riparianism on a Mexican law basis, (c) The legislature in 1889 acknowledged riparian rights for domestic purposes; in 1895 accorded riparian rights in arid areas protection; in 1913 declared nonrecognition of riparian rights in land that passed from State ownership after July 1, 1895, but protected earlier rights, (d) In 1962, the Texas Supreme Court held that lands in Spanish and Mexican grants on the lower Rio Grande do not have an appurtenant right to irrigate with the river waters.54 There was no issue of common law riparian rights in the case, (e) A 1967 statute restricted the exercise of riparian rights, except for domestic and livestock purposes, to the extent of the maximum beneficial use made during any one of certain recent years.55 Status: Throughout "(a) Terr. Dak. Laws 1865-1866, ch. 1, § 256, Civ. Code § 255 (1877). (b) Sturr v. Beck, 6 Dak. 71, 50 N.W. 486 (1888), affirmed, 133 U.S. 541, 547, 551 (1890). (c) Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co., 15 S. Dak. 519, 522-527, 91 N.W. 352 (1902); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466, 474, 128 N.W. 702 (1910). (d) S. Dak. Laws 1955, ch. 430, Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-1-9 (1967). (e) Belle Fourche In. Dist. v. Smiley, 176 N.W. (2d) 239 (S. Dak. 1970);Knight v. Grimes, 80 S. Dak. 517,127 N.W. (2d) 708 (1964). "Nevertheless, see chapter 7 at notes 656-659 regarding "equitable" rights recognized in a 1969 Texas Court of Civil Appeals case. 5i(*)Haasv.Choussard, 17 Tex. 588 (1856). (b)Motl v.Boyd, 116 Tex. 82,108, 286 S.W. 458 (1926). (c) Tex. Gen. Laws 1889, ch. 88, § 1, Laws 1895, ch. 21, § § 3 and 10, Laws 1913, ch. 171, § § 3, 19, 97, 98, and 98a, Laws 1917, ch. 88, § § 3, 24, 136, and 137. (d) Valmont Plantations v. State of Texas, 163 Tex. 381, 355 S.W. (2d) 502 (1962), affirming 346 S.W. (2d) 853 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961). (e) From 1963 to 1967, |