| OCR Text |
Show Chapter 24. MISSISSIPPI CONTENTS Page 1. Development of Mississippi Water Law_________________________ 423 2. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control- 424 2.1 Administration of Water Rights_______________________ 424 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts_____________________ 424 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities____ 425 3. Surface Waters____________________________________________ 426 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights__________________________ 426 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights__________________________ 429 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers_________________________ 430 3.4 Loss of Rights____________________________________ 431 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds_____________ 432 3.6 Springs__________________________________________ 433 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters_____________________________ 433 4. Ground Water____________________________________________ 434 Publications Available________________________________________ 434 DISCUSSION 1. Development of Mississippi Water Law Although Mississippi is located in a region of the United States which usually enjoys an abundant water supply, water shortages have been experienced in the State as a result of periodic drought conditions. Mississippi was the first of the Eastern States to embrace the appropriation system of the far West. Its 1956 Water Code % was apparently prompted by severe droughts in the early 1930's. Since that time, however, water seems to have been plentiful, and applica- tions for water permits are rarely denied. The decision to go to the appropriation system, although in many respects farsighted, may yet create some problems in the State. In the first place, the riparian system which prevailed prior to 1956 was never well-denned by the courts. Indeed, it is not even clear whether the natural flow or the reasonable use test was the basis for resolving disputes between riparians on a natural watercourse.2 Moreover, the appropriation statute contains a number of ambiguous provisions, particularly in connection with priorities among riparian claimants and permittees, and there have been no decisions interpreting the act.3 X5 Miss. Code Ann. sees. 5956-01 to -30 (1972 supp.). The statutes will hereafter be referred to simply by section numbers. A careful analysis of the act will be found in W. Champion, Prior Appropriation in Mississippi-A Statutory Analysis, 39 Miss. L.J. 1 (1967). Many of Professor Champion's suggestions are reflected, correctly it is hoped, in this chapter. 2 See, e.g., Masonite Corp. v. Windham, 210 Miss. 90, 48 So. 2d 622 (1950) ; Liles v. Cawthorn, 78 Miss. 559, 29 So. 834 (1900) ; Am. Sand & Gravel Co. v. Rushing, 183 Miss. 496, 14 So. 60 (1938). 3 A case dealing with public recreational rights in nonnavigable streams made no allusion to the adoption of the appropriation system. Downea v. Crosby Chemicals, Inc., 234 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1970), 42 Miss. L.J. 270 (1971). See also Haisch v. Southaven Land Co., 274 F. Supp. 392 (N.D. Miss. 1967) dealing with drainage problems among riparian owners. 423 |
