OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE IN THE WEST 3 trespassers on the public domain and the landowner (the United States) was not in court. The pattern of a riparian system was thus set by the State supreme court, already quite conscious of the common law, which was adopted by the legislature in the year of admission to statehood.10 The riparian doctrine still has considerable significance in California, although a constitu- tional amendment has restricted the exercise of riparian rights to reasonable beneficial use under reasonable methods of diversion and use.11 Texas.-In Texas, as well, riparian court decisions began in the 1850's and were based predominantly on the common law. Here, also, the riparian doctrine has had considerable significance, although its relative importance has been curtailed by a 1962 supreme court decision rejecting application of riparian irrigation rights to lands in Spanish and Mexican grants along the lower Rio Grande.12 Common law riparian rights were unaffected by this decision. But a 1967 statute has restricted the exercise of riparian rights, except for domestic or livestock purposes, to the extent of the maximum beneficial use made during certain recent years.13 Other Pacific States.-In Oregon, as a result of legislation and of court decisions favorably construing it, the riparian doctrine has been progressively so modified and restricted as to leave very little vestige insofar as it may be asserted against those who claim statutory appropriative rights.14 In the irrigation economy of Oregon, the sum total of these remnants of riparianism is small. In Washington, the riparian doctrine has been restricted and narrowed by court decisions to the extent that, to be protected against an appropriative right, a riparian rights holder must show that he will beneficially use the water either presently or within a reasonable time.15 A 1967 statute provided that riparian rights shall be relinquished for abandonment or voluntary failure, without sufficient cause, to beneficially use such a right for any period of 5 successive years thereafter.16 In Alaska, the riparian doctrine has been of limited importance. A 1966 statute apparently purports to convert any riparian rights to appropriative 10Cal. Stats. 1850, p. 219. "Cal. Const, art. XIV, § 3. 12 Valmont Plantations v. State ofTexas, 163 Tex. 381, 355 S.W. (2d) 502 (1962). 13 Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a, § 4 (Supp. 1970). 14Oreg. Laws 1909, ch. 216, Rev. Stat. ch. 539 (Supp. 1955);In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 610-620, 625-628, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915); In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 173-182, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924); California-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 73 Fed. (2d) 555, 562-569 (9th Cir. 1934), affirmed, 295 U.S. 142, 155-165 (1935). "Brown v. Chase, 125 Wash. 542, 549, 553, 217 Pac. 23 (1923);/« re Alpowa Creek, 129 Wash. 9, 13, 224 Pac. 29 (1924);Proctorv.Sim, 134 Wash. 606, 616-619, 236 Pac. 114 (1925); State v. American Fruit Growers, Inc., 135 Wash. 156, 161, 237 Pac. 498 (1925);/« re Sinlahekin Creek, 162 Wash. 635, 640-641, 229 Pac. 649 (1931). 16 Wash. Laws 1967, ch. 233, Rev. Code § 90.14.150 (Supp. 1970). |