OCR Text |
Show THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE IN THE WEST ture in 1887, (b) Territorial supreme court in 1888, (c) State constitution in 1912.40 Status: Doctrine never recognized in the jurisdiction. California (a) Common law riparian rights adjudicated between riparian proprietors in 1865. (b) Doctrine elaborated in 1886 court opinion, which stated that State adopted the doctrine in 1850 as part of the common law. (c) Superiority over appropriative rights intensified by decisions, especially in 1907 and 1926, (d) leading to State constitutional amendment in 1928. (e) Amendment accepted by supreme court in 1935 as commanding a new State water policy restricting riparian and all other water dghts to reasonable beneficial use of water under reasonable methods of diversion and use.41 Status: Riparian rights recognized but restricted to reason- able beneficial use under reasonable methods of diversion and use. Colorado (a) Riparian water-use doctrine repudiated in State court in 1882. (b) Confusing language in 1896-98 State cases suggest that perhaps domestic use was treated as recognized riparian right protected as against appropriative right, (c) Doctrine approved by Federal district court in 1898 for artificial uses of manufacturing, mining, and mechanical purposes, while recognizing repudiation of doctrine with respect to irrigation, (d) This 1898 Federal district court case expressly disapproved in 1910 by Federal circuit court of appeals, (e) Doctrine discussed in 1898 Federal circuit court of appeals case which implied that a riparian may apply water to beneficial use by virtue of his riparian status so long as he does not interfere with recognized operation of appropriation doctrine, (f) Latter case acknowledged in 1909 State case which, however, indicated that abolition of riparian doctrine was long established in Colorado.42 Status: Doctrine not recognized in Colorado as means 40(a) Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3198 (1887). (b) Clough v. Wing, 2 Ariz. 371, 381, 17 Pac. 453 (1888). (c) Ariz. Const, art. XVII, § 1. See Brasher v. Gibson, 101 Ariz. 326, 419 Pac. (2d) 505, 509 (1966). 41 (a) Ferrea v. Knipe, 28 Cal. 340, 343-345 (1865). (b) Lux v.Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 384, 387,4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886). (c) Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & In. Co., 155 Cal. 59, 64, 99 Pac. 502 (1907); Herminghaus v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 107-108, 252 Pac. 607 (1926). (d) Cal. Const, art. XIV, § 3. (e) Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. (2d) 351, 365, 40 Pac. (2d) 486 (1935). Most California law with respect to conflicting riparian-appropriation interrelation- ships was made in controversies in which the riparian right was adjudged superior. Re- garding differences, as against appropriative rights, that may arise due to the time that lands passed into private ownership, and related factors, see, in chapter 6, "Interrelation- ships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States-California." 42 (a) Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, 446-447 (1882). (b) Montrose Canal Co. v. Loutsenhizer Ditch Co., 23 Colo. 233, 237, 48 Pac. 532 (1896);Broadmoor Dairy & Live Stock Co. v. Brookside Water & Improvement Co., 24 Colo. 541, 545-546, 550, 52 |