| OCR Text |
Show Chapter 16 ADMINISTRATION OF STREAM WATER RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER IMPORTANCE In the expanding agriculture of the West, increasing water rights litigation over the years has emphasized the advisability or necessity of a practicable means of continually enforcing court decrees. Particularly in times of fluctuating streamflow, the complexities of carrying out a decree adjudicating many priorities called for continued supervision at least during critical periods. The power of a court of equity to provide enforcement of its own water decrees through a watermaster responsible to the court has been recognized since early in the history of water rights litigation.1 Supervision by administrative officials (which has been practiced almost as long) accomplishes the same purpose, although by a different legal process. In addition, in some States, such administrative supervision goes farther and extends not only to rights adjudicated by court decrees, but also to undecreed rights evidenced by permits, licenses, or certificates of appropriation, or by agreements between water users. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE Chapter 7 includes a brief summary of the threefold State administrative procedure pertaining to appropriative rights in watercourses-appropriation of water, adjudication of water rights, and administration of water rights and distribution of water to those entitled to receive it. (See "Methods of Appropriating Water of Watercourses-Water Rights Administration-Adminis- trative Control of Surface Water Rights-The threefold State administrative systems pertaining to watercourses.") The adjudication and water distribution facets of the complex whole of water administration pertaining to appropria- tive rights in watercourses are discussed in chapters 8 and 9, whereas chapter 7 concerns appropriation procedures. Certain other aspects of water rights administration and matters bearing on the distribution of water are discussed in chapter 14 regarding forfeiture of water rights. Chapter 15 is concerned with lFrey v. Lowden, 70 Cal. 550, 551-552, 11 Pac. 838 (1886); Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 586, 86 S.W. 733 (1905); Montezuma Canal Co. \.Smithville Canal Co., 218 U.S. 371, 385 (1910);Silkey v. Tiegs, 51 Idaho 344, 349, 357-358, 5 Pac. (2d) 1049 (1931). (519) |
