OCR Text |
Show INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE DUAL WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS 213 of fee the court said that:254 We think [these] cases have been misread. The appropriative rights [in these cases] seem to have been asserted by irrigation companies offering a public service. The court attached significance to the public benefit, to the appropriation project completed in good faith and at great cost, and to the tardy initiation of the riparian use. If the court went too far, the limitations themselves have remained. We reject the startling proposition [urged by the defendant appropriators] that equity sends every riparian proprietor packing. Defendants are private appropriators-not champions of the public interest... . The remedy rests on other considerations. The court set forth tests to determine the appropriateness of an injunction against an intentional tort in a given case, thereby establishing that in an appropriate case an injunction will lie. North Dakota Both riparian and appropriation doctrines have been recognized in North Dakota since early in the history of the Dakota Territory, but interrelation- ships between claimants of the opposing systems have been relatively meager. A statute of the Territory of Dakota provided, among other things, that water running in a definite natural stream might be used by the landowner as long as it remains there, but that he might not prevent the natural flow of the stream nor pursue nor pollute it.256 In 1955, the State legislature declared that the several and reciprocal rights of a riparian owner, other than a municipal corporation, in the waters of the State comprise the ordinary or natural use of water for domestic and stockwatering purposes.257 Both provisions were eliminated in 1963.258 Different provisions were enacted which relate to priority of water rights and preferences in the use of water. Among other things, this 1963 legislation provides (in section 61-01-01.1) that in all cases 254 Wasserburger v. Coffee, 180 Nebr. 147, 141 N. W. (2d) 738, 747 (1966). 2SSSturr v. Beck, 6 Dak. 71, 50 N. W. 486 (1888), affirmed, 133 U. S. 541 (1890); Bigelow v. Draper, 6 N. Dak. 152, 69 N. W. 570 (1S96); Brignall v. Hannah, 34 N. Dak. 174, 157 N. W. 1042 (1916); Ozark-Mahoning Co. v. State, 76 N. Dak. 464, 37 N. W. (2d) 488 (1949). The early case of Stun v. Beck, supra, generally cited as definitely recognizing both the riparian and appropriation doctrines, held that an earlier homesteader had made a prior appropriation of both land and water even without making use of the water, as against a later downstream entryman who trespassed upon the upper land in order to locate a water right thereon. This is suggestive of an offbeat example of interdoctrinal conflict, but it is not a satisfactory one. A recent and more important case in regard to interdoctrinal conflicts is Baeth v. Hoisveen, 157 N. W. (2d) 728 (N. Dak. 1968). This case is discussed below. "'Terr. Dak. Laws 1865-1866, ch. 1, § 256, Civil Code § 255 (1877). "TN. Dak. Laws 1955, ch. 345, § 2. 158 N. Dak. Laws 1963, ch. 419. Deletion of the substance of the 1955 riparian section, N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-01.1 (1960), was accomplished, not by literally |