OCR Text |
Show 156 eight of them, the situation being less clear in the remaining two; on the other hand the appropriation doctrine is variously recognized in all 17.24 Under the riparian doctrine, only an owner of lands riparian to a stream may make reasonable use of its waters, but only on his riparian lands.25 His right is subject to the same right in all others similarly situated, each of whom is entitled to share equitably in the water use.28 Moreover, this doctrine entitles a proprietor of riparian land to the continued natural flow of the stream, a right enforceable by judicial process.27 The right of a riparian owner is not gained by actual use of water, or lost by failure to use it.28 The riparian doctrine has undergone varying modification in those Western States still according it some recognition.29 The appropriation doctrine, on the other hand, rests on the proposition that beneficial use of water is the basis, meas- ** "The riparian doctrine has been recognized to varying degrees in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, California, and Washing- ton. In Oklahoma it has been assumed that the riparian doctrine is in effect but the right of a riparian owner against an appropriator of the water of the same stream has not yet been defined by the Supreme Court. It is theoretically recognized in Oregon, but statutes and court decisions in that State are such that it has been practically discarded. The doctrine has been specifically repudiated in toto in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. "The appropriation doctrine has been adopted in all 17 of the arid and seiniarid Western States. In such of these States as also recognize the riparian doctrine, the two doctrines are recognized concurrently. The two- fold system is often referred to as the 'California doctrine' and the exclusive appropriation system as the 'Colorado doctrine.' " Id. p. 8. See also sum- maries in Appendix B of this volume. 25 See, e. g., Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674 (1886). 24 Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co., 113 U. S. 9,23 (1885). * United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Go., 174 TJ. S. 690, 702 (1889); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 85 (1907). 28 Chandler, Elements of Western Wateb Law, p. 27 (1913). s* See supra, n. 142, p. 35. Views of early writers differed as to the extent of modification which the common-law riparian doctrine has undergone. For example, compare the discussions of Lux v. Haggin by Chandler and Wiel. Chandler, Elements of Western Water Law, p. 13 (1913); I Wiel, Wateb Eights in the Western States, §§ 673-674, pp. 745-747 (3d ed. 1911). |