| OCR Text |
Show 4 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE rights and it apparently contemplates that any such rights may be forfeited for failure to beneficially use them within 5 years thereafter.17 In Hawaii, the riparian doctrine applies, as between "konohiki" (major land) units, to the surplus freshet waters of a stream, but not to the normal flow. Unlike other Western States, there is no appropriation system of surface water rights recognized in Hawaii.18 Other 100th meridian States. -An early statute of the Territory of Dakota declared the rights of the landowner in definite streams contiguous to his land.19 This, according to the South Dakota Supreme Court, was a concise statement of the common law doctrine applicable to the rights of riparian owners.20 It has been repealed in both North Dakota and South Dakota.21 Courts of both Dakotas have recognized the common law riparian right.22 South Dakota enacted a statute designed to restrict the operation of the riparian doc- trine. Riparian rights for other than domestic purposes were not recognized ex- cept for vested rights under which water had been put to beneficial use before or, if works were then under construction, within a reasonable time after its enactment.23 Validity of the statute was upheld by the State supreme court.24 A 1955 North Dakota act declared that the rights of riparian owners, other than municipalities, comprise domestic and stockwatering purposes.25 It and the earlier territorial statute26 were eliminated in 1963.27 The 1955 act also amended the statute regarding waters subject to appropriation.28 The 1963 legislation added various provisions regarding priority of water rights and water-use preferences, no permit being required for domestic and livestock purposes.29 In 1968, the State supreme court appears to have concluded that 17 Alaska Laws 1966, ch. 50, Stat. § 46.15.010 et seq. (Supp. 1966). l*Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, 24 Haw. 47, 70-71 (1917); Territory ofHawaiiw. Gay, 31 Haw. 376, 394417 (1930), affirmed, 52 Fed. (2d) 356 (9th Cir. 1931), certiorari denied, 284 U.S. 677 (1931). 19Terr. Dak. Laws 1865-1866, ch. 1, § 256, Civ. Code § 255 (1877). 20Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co., 15 S. Dak. 519, 525-527, 91 N.W. 352 (1902); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466, 474, 128 N.W. 702 (1910). 21N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 47-01-13 (1960), repealed, Laws 1963, ch. 419, § 7; S. Dak. Code § 61.0101 (1939), repealed, Laws 1955, ch. 430, § 1. "McDonough v. Russell-Miller Mill. Co., 38 N. Dak. 465, 165 N.W. 504 (1917) Johnson v. Armour & Co., 69 N. Dak. 769, 291 N.W. 113 (1940); Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co., 15 S. Dak. 519,91 N.W. 352 (1902); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Reed, 26 S. Dak. 466, 128 N.W. 702 (1910). 23 S. Dak. Laws 1955, ch. 430, Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-1-9 (1967). 24Belle Fourche In. Dist. v. Smiley, 176 N.W. (2d) 239 (S. Dak. 1970); Knight v. Grimes, 80 S. Dak. 517, 127 N.W. (2d) 708 (1964). 25N. Dak. Laws 1955, ch. 345, § 2, Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-01.1 (1960). MTerr. Dak. Laws 1865-1866, ch. 1, § 256, N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 47-01-13 (1960). 27N. Dak. Laws 1963, ch. 419, § 7. 28N. Dak. Laws 1955, ch. 345, § l.Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-01 (1960). 29N. Dak. Laws 1963, ch. 419, § 1, Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-01.1 (Supp. 1969). |
