OCR Text |
Show 680 SOUTH DAKOTA the State's irrigation district law was patterned after the original California legislation in the 19th century,53 relied upon an early U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the California act.54 Although that case did not specifically consider the nonresident restriction in the California act, the South Dakota Supreme Court felt that there was no unconstituional discrimination against nonresidents.65 C. PRIVATE WATER AGENCIES Although commercial corporations organized for the purpose of selling water to the public do not seem to have been used in South Dakota, there is a chapter devoted to water users' associations.56 In many States similar entities are called mutual water companies. As nonprofit corporations, they are designed primarily to distribute water to their shareholders. In the past, they often contracted di- rectly with the Department of the Interior for waterworks author- ized under the Eeclamation Act of 1902. Nowadays, the Department prefers to deal with public irrigation districts which have the ad- vantage of a broader tax base. The association's assets consist pri- marily of the waterworks, and the water right in many instances is owned by the shareholders. To raise revenue for necessary main- tenance and repairs,57 the association is authorized to levy special assessments against stockholders and is given a lien for unpaid assessments on land owned by shareholders against which such assess- ments are levied, and also "for all deferred payments on the water right appurtenant to such lands."58 3. Surface Waters 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights Under the 1955 water code ,the exclusive method of acquiring an appropriation right is by a permit from the State water resources commission. Although riparian rights were at one time recognized, since the 1955 act their existence is little more than a matter of academic interest, for the reasons explained in the following section. 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights The nature of water rights as recognized by South Dakota law cannot be understood without some discussion of the major statutes and court decisions, and the way that they came about. This legis- lative and judicial history is interesting as well as significant, for it shows the difficulties encountered by the State in abolishing the riparian rights system in favor of the appropriation system. 53 See the history of irrigation district legislation in 4 Waters and Water Rights 416 (R. Clark ed. 1970). BiFallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112 (1896). 66 Cf. In re Bonds of Madera Irrigation Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 28 Pac. 272 (1891). 66 Sees. 46-11-1 to 46-11-7. See generally 4 Waters and Water Rights 376-398 (R. Clark ed. 1970). 57 See Magruder v. Belle Fourche Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 219 Fed. 72 (5th Cir. 1914). 68 Sec. 46-11-7. |