OCR Text |
Show 54 GROUND WATER so, he has no complaint against A's use of the water; whereas, under the reasonable use test, the court would say that A's use is reason- able because it does not interfere with any use which B is making, or desires to make, of the water. So, it may well be that the doctrines of correlative rights and rea- sonable use are not much different in the results they produce; al- though, where there is an active competition for use of the water, the former offers a ready formula for use allocation and the latter requires a balancing of equities in each particular case. (4) APPROPRIATION Some Western States have statutes which declare that all waters, whether surface or underground, belong to the public and are subject to appropriation for beneficial use. These statutes represent a relatively recent effort to allow maximum development of ground water resources, and to improve ground water administration by requiring applications to be filed before wells are drilled or ground water otherwise developed. Ground water uses which predate these statutes are recognized and protected as water rights in the amount actually and beneficially used, but landowners who had not de- velopment ground water prior to such statutes have no right at all arising from their ownership of land, and must proceed in exact accordance with the statutes if they wish to develop and use ground water. In this regard, an appropriator must follow the same steps and procedures, and satisfy the same conditions and requirements, as he would if he were seeking to appropriate from a surface watercourse. In States which have declared that all ground water is subject to appropriation, the legal distinctions mentioned above are unimpor- tant because they are irrelevant. In fact, it even becomes un- important to make any legal distinction between surface water and ground water, except with respect to the forms used in filing appli- cations and the procedures followed to develop and perfect rights of use. The physical factors to be considered are, however, more difficult to determine. The administrative officer must ascertain whether there is unap- propriated water which can be developed and applied to use without interference with vested rights, and this often is a difficult determi- nation, particularly where little is known concerning the porosity of the aquifer, or the interconnection of aquifers and surface water- courses (ground water applications cannot be approved if they would interfere with vested rights in surface supplies, just as appli- cations to appropriate surface water cannot be approved if the water to be appropriated is the source of supply for vested ground water rights). Other physical characteristics might have some importance. For example, while the legal distinction between underground streams and percolating water would be irrelevant, the practical distinction might not. A new well drilled into the channel of an underground stream might intercept water which is the source of supply for an existing well 1 mile downstream, whereas a well drilled 100 yards |