| OCR Text |
Show NEW YORK 551 A number of further uncertainties in New York riparian law would have persisted (and still persist), even if the harmful use bill had been enacted. One of these is the identification of riparian land.160 The obvious fact that land must border on a watercourse in order to be classified as riparian is not in dispute,161 but there is uncertainty as to whether riparian rights are extinguished when part of a riparian tract is severed and sold so that the part transferred no longer borders on the watercourse,182 whether riparian rights can be increased when a riparian purchases a nonriparian tract adjacent to his riparian tract;163 and whether riparian land includes all of the contiguous land in single ownership within the watershed, or extending beyond the watershed.164 Another question is the extent of permissible domestic uses on riparian land. These uses probably include: use of stream or lake water by a riparian owner and his family for drinking, cooking, sanitation and for watering the number of domestic animals needed to supply the family table with meat, milk, and eggs * * *16B although substantial uncertainty exists as to whether domestic use would include irrigation of commercial crops, or: irrigation of enough land to supply the needs of the riparian family for fruit, grain and vegetables; the supply of water to animals being raised for market or kept for the production of eggs or milk for sale; maintenance of ponds fed by stream or lake water for family food supply or recreation; operation of air-conditioning units in the riparian home; and use for drinking, cooking and sanitation in hospitals, military installations, motels, children's camps and similar institutions located on riparian land.198 Another area of uncertainty has to do with the transfer of riparian rights and privileges, and these problems are discussed in section 3.3, infra. A still further uncertainty is the extent to which riparian owners may "freeload." Freeloading is a term applied to use of water by riparians from a streamflow which is augmented by release of stored or imported water, usually to sustain water quality. When riparians do not contribute to the cost of the facilities which provide the augmented flow, but withdraw water therefrom to the detriment of the use being served by the reservoir release, the question is whether they can do so legally: After the water is released and flows down the stream, it presumably becomes a part of the waters of the State, just like any other waters * * *. A farmer wants to irrigate downstream, so he pumps water from the river, puts it on his land, and the water does not get back into the stream. Here, all the work, all the theory, all the operating plans, all the congressional objectives, all the interstate and interagency agreements * * * go right down the drain because the water is withdrawn.167 i«o w. Farnham, note 5, p. 27, at 399; see also W. Farnham, The Permissible Extent of Riparian Land, 7 Land and Water L. Rev. 31 (1972). i« United Paper Board Co. v. Iroquois Pulp & Paper Co., 226 N.Y. 38, 123 N.H. 200 (1919) wRumsey v. New York d N.E.R.R., 114 N.Y. 423, 21 N.H. 1066 (1889) ; New York Cent. & H.R.R.R. v. Aldridge, 135 N.Y. 82, 32 N.B. 50 (1892) ; Sounders v. New York Cent. & H.R.R.R., 144 N.Y. 75, 38 N.B. 992 (1894) ; Crance v. State of New York, 284 A.D. 750, 136 N.Y.S. 2d 156 (1954) ; and see W. Farnham, note 5, p. 27, at 399, and particularly note 93. las w. Farnham, note 5, p. 27, at 399. i«Id. "sId. at 400. 188 Id. 167 Public Health Service, Symposium on Stream Flow Regulation for Water Quality Control, 43-44 (paper by Stein) (1965), cited and quoted in W. Farnham, note 5, p. 27. at 404. |
