OCR Text |
Show 536 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT In almost identical language, the statutes of California and South Dakota declare the established policy of the State to be that the right of a municipality to acquire and hold rights to the use of water should be protected to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses. However, no municipality may waste water or use it for other than municipal purposes. Nor may waters in excess of reasonable existing needs of the municipality be prevented from being temporarily appropriated by others, subject to the municipality's right of recovery when needed.484 A section of the Texas water rights statute as enacted in 1931 provided that all appropriations of water thereafter made-from the waters of any stream other than the Rio Grande-for any purpose other than domestic or municipal, should be granted subject to the right of any municipality of the State to make further appropriation thereof for domestic and municipal purposes without the necessity of compensating the existing appropriators.485 The validity of this provision was sustained by a Federal court as against a contention that the exclusion of the waters of the Rio Grande was unconstitutional.486 The Wyoming Supreme Court pointed out one of the differences between an appropriation for irrigation and one for municipal purposes. This was to the effect that although water stored for agricultural purposes is not put to a beneficial use until actually used therefor, nevertheless part of a city's stored water supply is a continuing benefit to the community from the time it is first impounded, in that it "stands as a partial protection against the spread of fire in the city every minute of the day, and therefore, at all times subserves a most beneficial purpose."487 The right of a municipality to appropriate water to meet its reasonably anticipated future needs is declared and approved in legislation and court decisions of several States. This facet of the topic of municipal water rights is discussed in chapter 7 under "Who May Appropriate Water-Governmental Agencies and Entities Other than Districts-Municipality." Domestic and stockwatering.- At common law, the right to water cattle in a stream flowing through one's land appears to have been as much a part of the landowner's prerogative as his right to use the stream for drinking and culinary purposes.488 As developed in various American and English cases, and as specifically recognized in California, uses of water for domestic purposes and for the watering of domestic animals at the farmstead are classed as "natural" uses of water, and uses for business purposes including watering of large herds 484Cal. Water Code § 106.5 (West 1956); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-1-5(2) (1967). 485 Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. aits. 7472 and 7472a (1954). 486 El Paso County W. I. Dist. No. 1 v. El Paso, 133 Fed. Supp. 894, 906-907 (W.D.Tex. 1955). The court held that the statute does not reflect any arbitrary discrimination or repugnant classification and is not irrational. 487 Van Tassel Real Estate & Live Stock Co. v. Cheyenne, 49 Wyo. 333, 362, 54 Pac. (2d) 906 (1936). ™eBathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal. 135, 142, 58 Pac. 442 (1899). |