OCR Text |
Show 6 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE Summary of Recognition, Repudiation, and Status of Riparian Doctrine in Individual Western States Matters affecting the varied course of the riparian water-use doctrine in each of the 19 Western States are presented in one form or another immediately above, as well as in chapter 6 and in the appendix, which contains summaries of the water rights systems of all these States. Several points are brought together below in this concise form for ready reference purposes in the course of reading subsequent subdivisions of this chapter. Bear in mind, as noted at the outset of this chapter, that in those States in which the riparian water use doctrine has been generally repudiated or never recognized (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), there are cases in some of these jurisdictions (as well as other Western States) which have declared or implied that a riparian landowner may beneficially use the water so long as he does not interfere with the recognized operation of the appropriation doctrine. Moreover, certain other features of riparian rights have been recognized in some of these States. Considerations regarding navigable watercourses are discussed later under "The Riparian Right-Attachment of Riparian Rights to Various Water Sources-Navigable Watercourses." Alaska (a) Riparian water-rights doctrine recognized by court in 1903, but (b) repudiated by higher court in 1910. (c) Territorial legislature enacted statute in 1917 enacting law of riparian rights to limited extent regarding mining claims and (d) recognized by court in 1940. (e) A 1966 statute, which repealed the earlier mining legislation, apparently purports to convert any riparian rights to divert, impound, and withdraw water to appropriative rights and it apparently contemplates that any such rights may be forfeited, in whole or in part, for failure to beneficially use them, without sufficient cause, for any period of 5 successive years thereafter.39 Status: Riparian doctrine has been recognized only to a limited extent. The 1966 statute apparently purports to convert any riparian rights to divert, impound, or withdraw water to appropria- tive rights and contemplates that they may be forfeited for failure to beneficially use them, without sufficient cause, for any period of 5 successive years thereafter. Arizona Riparian water-use doctrine repudiated by (a) Territorial legisla- 39(a) Ketchikan Co. v. Citizens' Co., 2 Alaska 120, 123-124 (1903). (b) Van Dyke v. Midnight Sun Min. & Ditch Co., Ml Fed. 85, 88, 91 (9th Cir. 1910). (c) Alaska Laws 1917, ch. 57, Comp. Laws Ann. § 47-3-35 (1949), Stat. §§ 27.10.080 (Supp. 1962) and 38.05.260 (Supp. 1965). (d) Balabanoffv. Kellogg, 10 Alaska 11, 16-17, 118 Fed. (2d) 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1940), certiorari denied, 314 U.S. 635 (1941). (e) Alaska Laws 1966, ch. 50, Stat. § 46.15.010 et seq. (Supp. 1966). |