OCR Text |
Show 112 THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE In Texas, the administrative rules and regulations provide that "Stockraising use is the use of water for watering livestock connected with the operation of a commercial feedlot." The Texas regulations also contain a provision defining livestock use as "the use of water for watering livestock connected with farming, ranching or dairy enterprises."570 Irrigation A long recognized riparian use of water. -In what apparently was the first California decision as to relative rights of riparian proprietors, it was held that the downstream riparian was entitled to the natural flow, undiminished, except by the use of the upstream proprietor for domestic purposes and reasonable irrigation.571 At about this time, irrigation as a riparian use was being discussed in several Texas cases.572 Decisions from other States recognizing reasonable irrigation as a proper riparian use are cited earlier under "Natural and Artificial Uses of Water."573 Artificial use of water.- Except in Texas, irrigation was not held in any western jurisdiction, so far as the author has been able to ascertain, to be a natural use of riparian water as distinguished from an artificial use. On the contrary, reasonableness of use for irrigation has consistently measured the riparian right as among riparian owners. As against uses of water for domestic purposes and the watering of farm livestock, the irrigation right is subordinate and applies only to the surplus of water above the quantities required for these primary or natural uses. "These natural wants supplied and protected, the right to a reasonable use of the surplus water by the riparian proprietor, in common with others in like situation, for purposes of irrigation, has been acknowledged and recognized, but it cannot be extended even by implication."574 As noted previously under "Natural and Artificial Uses of Water," conflicting points of view as to which category irrigation belonged in were expressed by the Texas courts over a period of more than four decades. This confusion was brought to a close by the Texas Supreme Court in a decision holding unqualifiedly that irrigation was an artificial use.575 570Tex. Water Rights Comm'n, "Rules, Regulations and Modes of Procedure," rules 115.1(t) and (ff) (1970 Rev., Jan. 1970). 511Ferrea v. Knipe, 28 Cal. 340, 343-345, 87 Am. Dec. 128 (1865). See Lux v.Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 359-360, 4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674, 734 (1886). 572Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304, 310, 84 Am. Dec. 631 (1863); Tolle v. Correth, 31 Tex. 362, 365, 98 Am. Dec. 540 (Military Ct. 1868); Fleming v. Davis, 37 Tex. 173, 196-200 (Semicolon Ct. lS12);Baker v. Brown, 55 Tex. 377, 379-380 (1881). 573See also Markwardt v. Guthrie, 18 Okla. 32, 33-34, 90 Pac. 26 (1907). "4Alta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal. 219, 230, 24 Pac. 645 (1890). It is after the natural wants of the riparian owners for strictly domestic purposes and the watering of domestic animals are supplied that the several riparian proprietors are entitled to a reasonable use of the remaining water for irrigation. Smith v. Corbit, 116 Cal. 587, 592, 48 Pac. 725(1897). 575 Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 585-590, 86 S.W. 733 (1905). |