OCR Text |
Show OKLAHOMA 611 fected after the effective date of the act; (e) priorities based on withdrawal of water by the United States in accordance with the Oklahoma statutes; (f) priorities based on beneficial use initiated after statehood and subsequently perfected as provided in the 1963 amendments; and (g) priorities based on easements granted without compensation by landowners prior to the statute authorizing up- stream flood control impoundments under the sponsorship of soil and water conservation districts. Many of these provisions are now primarily of academic interest. Since vested rights on most streams have now been adjudicated, only (d), (e), and (g) will have prospective application. (6) It should be noted that the recent amendments make no at- tempt to establish preferences for particular uses among holders of appropriation permits. In this respect, the Oklahoma law departs from provisions in some of the Western States which do have pref- erences for particular uses, but these preferences are of primary im- portance only as among competing applicants. (7) The amendments eliminate the pre-1963 rule established by the courts that a hydrographic survey and a general adjudication were conditions precedent to perfecting an appropriation right. This background of Oklahoma water law would be incomplete without a brief examination of the recent case of Oklahoma Water Resources Board v. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District.*2 Professor Rarick has severely criticized the decision6S for introducing many uncertainties in the application of the 1963 legislation which attempted to reconcile the riparian and appropriation systems. The facts before the court showed that the city of Oklahoma, long prior to 1963, purchased most of the watershed surrounding East Elm Creek, a tributary of the Little River. The creek was dammed in order to collect in the stream diffused surface water from the riparian land, and to use it for municipal purposes. The conservancy district (as successor in title to the Federal Bureau of Reclamation) claimed as a pre-1963 appropriator on Little River where it had built a dam. It applied to the water resources board for an order requiring the city to release the stored water, and, eventually, the State supreme court required such a release. The difficulty with the district's position was that it did not have a valid pre-1963 appropriation because its application could not have been perfected without a prior hydrographic survey and general adjudication. If, then, the district was merely a riparian owner, the controversy would have been between two riparian claimants, and the "reasonable use" rule would have governed. The city's claim to the water might well have been regarded as reasonable since it did not exceed the runoff of diffused surface water from the city's water- shed land. If, however, the case were to be regarded as a controversy between an appropriator and a riparian, then it would seem that the legislative attempt in 1963 to reconcile the systems should provide some basis for adjusting their respective claims. In this posture, the decision is most awkward. °2 464 P. 2d 748 (Okla. 1968). 88 Rarick II at 52-70. 499-242-73------40 |