| OCR Text |
Show QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE WATER 209 Some specific types of injuries that have been complained of and litigated by appropriators or riparians include pollution by mining and milling debris,110 contamination by sewage,111 drainage from oil fields,112 salt water impregna- tion,113 and deleterious industrial wastes.114 MEANS OF DIVERSION An appropriator of water is entitled to protection in a reasonably efficient means of diversion, as against junior appropriators. Some of the situations in which this general principle has been worked out follow.115 Some considera- tions regarding means of diversion under the riparian doctrine are discussed in Martin v. British Am. Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193, 194-196, 102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940). 110Complaints by appropriators: Phoenix Water Co. v. Fletcher, 23 Cal. 481, 487 (1863); Ravndal v. Northfork Placers, 60 Idaho 305,. 311-313, 91 Pac. (2d) 368 (1939); Arizona Copper Co. v. Gillespie, 12 Ariz. 190, 202-203, 100 Pac. 465 (1909), affirmed, 230 U.S. 46 (1913); Humphreys Tunnel & Min. Co. v. Frank, 46 Colo. 524, 529-530, 105 Pac. 1093 (1909). The earliest complaints of injury to quality of the water that reached the premises of the prior appropriator or riparian owner were in the mining areas of the Sierra Foothills in California, and arose out of the discharge of water and debris from mining and milling operations. Bear River & Auburn Water & Min. Co. v.New York Min. Co., 8 Cal. 327, 333-336 (1857); Pilot Rock Creek Canal Co. v. Chapman, 11 Cal. 161, 162 (1858). 111 Complaints by riparians: Boyd v. Schreiner, 116 S.W. 100, 103 (Tex. Civ. App. 1909, error refused); New Odorless Sewerage Co. v. Wisdom, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 224, 226-228, 70 S.W. 354 (1902, error refused); Markwardt v. Guthrie, 18 Okla. 32, 33-35, 54, 90 Pac. 26 (1907); Enid v. Brooks, 132 Okla. 60, 61-63, 269 Pac. 241 (1928); Oklahoma City v. Tytenicz, 171 Okla. 519, 521, 43 Pac. (2d) 747 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Tyetenicz, 175 Okla. 228, 229, 52 Pac. (2d) 849 (1935); Parsons v. Sioux Falls, 65 S. Dak. 145,151-153, 272 N.W. 288 (1937). il2Complaints by riparians: Teel v. Rio Bravo Oil Co., 47 Tex. Civ. App. 153, 160, 104 S.W. 420 (1907); Benjamin v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 477, 108 S.W. 408 (1908, error refused); Comar Oil Co. v. Blagden, 169 Okla. 78, 35 Pac. (2d) 954 (1934); Martin v. British Am. Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193, 194-195, 102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Miller, 198 Okla. 54, 55-56, 175 Pac. (2d) 335 (1946). '"Complaints by riparians: Meridian v. San Francisco, 13 Cal. (2d) 424,*51-452, 90 Pac. (2d) 537 (1939);fl&gs v. Lee, 147 S.W. 709, 711 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912, error dismissed); Bigham Bros. v. Port Arthur Channel & Dock Co., 100 Tex. 192, 199-202, 97 S.W. 686 (1906), on further hearing, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 372-373, 126 S.W. 324 (1910). 114 Complaints by riparians: Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408, 37 Pac. (2d) 303 (1934), approved, but distinguished on the facts, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Miller, 198 Okla. 54, 55-56, 175 Pac. (2d) 335 (1946), approved as to proof of cause of injury from stream pollution, Sunray Oil Corp. v. Burge, 269 Pac. (2d) 782, 786 (Okla. 1954). Regarding runoff from a cattle feedlot, see Atkinson v. Herington Cattle Co., 200 Kans. 298, 436 Pac. (2d) 816, 823-824 (1968). 115 See also, in chapter 9, "Efficiency of Practices." For some other discussions related to diversions by appropriators, see, in chapter 9, "Diversion, Distribution, and Storage |
