OCR Text |
Show 416 MINNESOTA to state rules of law under the reasonable use test. Everything seems to depend upon the peculiar facts of the case. Theoretically, there is no special preference for one use over an- other. But, in reading the cases, one occasionally can discern a judi- cial bias in favor of particular uses. Thus, among competing uses,49 the Minnesota court has perhaps indicated some preference for recre- ational and esthetic uses over those which are purely commercial.50 But, no special preference seems to have been accorded domestic uses over uses for manufacturing.51 In Meyers v. LaFayette Club,52 suit was brought to enjoin a coun- try club from diverting water for sprinkling its golf course, because this use allegedly interfered with the swimming and boating activities of other riparian owners. The court found that a consumptive use was not "commercial or artificial," and so injunction was denied. It should be noted that riparian or littoral owners may have some extensive privileges in the use of the bed of the stream or lake, in- cluding the right to build wharves extending out to the point of navigability.53 These rights are, however, subordinate to legitimate public interests in navigable or public waters. The issue often comes up in connection with recreational rights of the public as against uses by riparian owners.54 Of particular importance are the Minnesota cases dealing with claims of municipalities. Although a city apparently is not regarded as a riparian owner, it does possess "public rights" which are in fact superior to the rights of private riparian owners. In one case, the court held that a municipality could divert water from a large stream to supply its inhabitants, even though the flow of the stream was diminished to the prejudice of lower riparian power companies;65 and that the private riparian owners are not entitled to compensation for their losses. The case was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.56 The priority of "public rights" was also recognized in the recent case of State v. Kuluvar,57 discussed in section 3.2, supra. 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers The Minnesota court has held that riparian rights may be trans- ferred,58 even to nonriparian owners.59 As far as water permits are concerned, there is no indication in the statute that they are or are not transferable. Since they are revocable at any time, and since the 40 See generally S. Kinyon, What Can a Riparian Proprietor Dot 21 Minn. L. Rev. 512 (1937). 50 In Petrdborg v. Zonelli, 217 Minn. 536, 15 N.W. 2d 174 (1944), a mining company's attempt to drain a portion of a lake was held to be unreasonable when it interfered with recreational and esthetic uses. A domestic use was preferred over a commercial use in Sanborn v. People's Ice Go., 82 Minn. 43, 84 N.W. 641 (1900). 61 Petraoorg v. Zonelli, supra note 50. <® 197 Minn. 241, 266 N.W. 861 (1936). 58 Id. 266 N.W. at 180-81. M See, e.g., Botton v. State, 69 Wash. 2d 751, 420 P. 2d 352 (1966). sb Minneapolis Mill. Go. v. St. Paul Water Comm'rs., 56 Minn. 485, 58 N.W. 33 (1894). m Sub. nom. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Go. v. St. Paul Water Comm'rs., 168 U.S. 349 (1897) ; see also Mitchell v. Oity of St. Paul, 225 Minn. 390, 31 N.W. 2d 46 (1948). 67 266 Minn. 408, 123 N.W. 2d 699 (1963). 68 Gravel v. Little Falls Imp. & Nav. Go., 74 Minn. 416, 77 N.W. 217 (1898) ; City Power Co. v. Fergus Falls Water Go., 55 Minn. 172, 56 N.W. 685 (1895) ; Oargil v. Thompson, 50 Minn. 211, 52 N.W. 644 (1892) ; Minneapolis Mill. Co. v. Hobart, 26 Minn. 37 N.W. 45 (1878). 68 See St. Anthony Falls Water Power Go. v. City of Minneapolis, 41 Minn. 270, 43 N.W. 56 (1889). |