OCR Text |
Show 14 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE most of Texas judicial history the riparian doctrine has been recognized, and the legislature has both recognized its existence and limited its application. The Valmont Plantations decision in 1962 concluded that no implied riparian irrigation rights were included with Spanish and Mexican grants, but common law riparian rights were not affected. The 1967 legislation has restricted the exercise of riparian rights, except for domestic and livestock purposes, to the extent of maximum beneficial use during certain recent years. Riparian influence in Texas has been curtailed by these developments. Utah Riparian water-use doctrine repudiated in 1891.56 Status: Doctrine never recognized in the jurisdiction. Washington (a) Riparian doctrine recognized by legislature in 1891 and (b) by supreme court in 1892. (c) Modified in 1920's by requiring riparian owner to show that either at present or within a reasonable time, he will make use of the water for beneficial purposes to be protected against an appropriative right, (d) A 1967 statute provided that riparian rights shall be relinquished in whole or in part for abandonment or voluntary failure, without sufficient cause, to beneficially use all or part of such a right for any period of 5 successive years thereafter.57 Status: Riparian rights are recognized in Washington; but they have been restricted to present or reasonably prospective beneficial use to be protected against an appropriative right, and they shall be relinquished for abandon- ment or voluntary failure, without sufficient cause, to beneficially use such a right within a certain period. Wyoming Riparian water-use doctrine repudiated in 1896.s8 Status: Doctrine never recognized in the jurisdiction. inclusive, or until the end of 1970, if works were under construction before the act's effective date. If valid under existing law, claims for such rights shall be filed as required with the administering agency to prevent their being extinguished. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a, § 4 (Supp. 1970). "Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah 215, 225-226, 26 Pac. 290 (1891). 57(a) Wash. Laws 1891, ch. 142. § § 24. (b) Crook v. Hewitt, 4 Wash. 749, 750, 31 Pac. 28 (1892). (c) Brown v. Chase, 125 Wash. 542, 549, 553, 217 Pac. 23 (1923); State v. American Fruit Growers, Inc., 135 Wash. 156, 161, 237 Pac. 498 (1925). (d) Wash. Laws 1967, ch. 233, Rev. Code § 90.14.170 (Supp. 1970). Regarding restrictions in the use of navigable waters, see the discussion at note 411 infra. s*Moyer v. Preston, 6 Wyo. 308, 318-320,44 Pac. 845 (1896). |