OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 357 The court applied a weighted priorities system in which it divided those with water rights into two classes: A (legal) and B (equitable). Class A (legal) included those who had acquired a right to use waters of the Rio Grande River by virtue of having complied with the appropriation statutes of the State or those whose rights had been recognized by the State. Class B (equitable) included those who had been "making good faith use of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes prior to the institution of this suit but do not qualify as Class A users."656 The latter included those who had been held not to have riparian rights in Valmont Plantations v. State of Texas, decided in 1962,657 and others who had been receiving water from certain water districts by various means.658 The court stressed that there had been uncertainty as to the nature and origin of water rights along the lower Rio Grande River prior to the Valmont Plantations decision and that, although certain water users did not have legal rights, the State had never taken action to cancel or limit the scope or operations under any certified filing or permit relating to waters of the Rio Grande.659 The court also said: ... there is in this state a strong public policy against waste. It hardly seems appropriate to say that in times of abundant water, we must nevertheless adopt a strict literal construction of statutes that were not designed for and hence in part are not suited to the regulation of rights in and to waters stored by governmental action when such course would deprive good faith users of water and allow the same to flow unused to the Gulf. These good faith users are before the court for the purpose of having their rights adjudicated. If it rests within the power and authority of the court to adjudicate such claims, relief should not be denied. In our opinion, equitable rights may be recognized because of the considerations above mentioned. We think classifications based roughly upon legal and equitable bases can be made effectively operative and that a 1.7 to 1 weighted priority plan will be substantially in accord with the trial court's theory of the division of available waters.660 . . . Considering the water as may be available to meet the irrigation needs of see 739-740. Incidentally, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7545 (1954), repealed, Laws 1967, ch. 159, § 1, provided that an application by one who constructs a dam across any watercourse for the purpose of storing the water thereof "shall have priority over all other applicants." The court did not mention this provision. 656 State v. Hidalgo County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 18, 443 S. W. (2d) 728, 748-749 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969). 657 163 Tex. 381, 355 S. W. (2d) 502 (1962), discussed in chapter 6 under "Interrelation- ships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States- Texas." 6SSState v. Hidalgo County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 18, 443 S. W. (2d) 728, 749-750 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969). 6S9Id. at 745-746, 760. 660The trial court had further provided that "The unallocated water periodically will be |