OCR Text |
Show 751 owner of a definite stream237 and stated that the stream in litigation was a definite stream; that the parties had reciprocal rights; and that each was entitled to a reasonable use of the stream.238 In 1946 a controversy between riparian owners was decided, the lower owners having brought suit to enjoin the upper owners and their lessees from obstructing the stream and taking water to nonriparian lands for drill- ing operations.239 The court referred to the statute above noted, and to previous decisions; stated that in Oklahoma "the common law defi- nition of riparian rights substantially obtains"; and held that as between riparian owners each was limited to a reasonable use with regard to the rights and necessities of the others, and that to be entitled to relief, lower owners must show that they have suffered injury to their riparian rights. The doctrine of appropriation likewise has been recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court as applicable to conditions in Okla- homa,240 and the extant appropriation statute has been construed by that court.241 However, apparently no decisions have been rendered by the supreme court in controversies involving conflicts between claim- ants of riparian rights on the one hand and of appropriative rights on the other to the use of the same water supply. A statute to be cited as the "Oklahoma Ground Water Law," pro- viding for State control over rights to the use of ground water other than ground water flowing in underground streams with ascertainable beds and banks, was enacted in 1949.242 Previously, the statute de- claring the ownership of ground water not forming a definite stream- that is, percolating water-to be vested in the owner of overlying land 243 had been construed by the supreme court as not intended to convey such an absolute ownership as to result in unreasonable injury to one's neighbor, who has a similar ownership.244 On the contrary, according: to the court, each landowner must be restricted to a reasonable exercise of his own rights in view of the similar rights of others, and exhaustion of a neighbor's ground-water supply for transport to distant lands does not conform to this requirement of reasonableness. The 1949 law provides for priority of claims for the appropriation of ground water according to priority of right, but exempts uses for domestic purposes m See supra, n. 229, p. 750. ^Broadyv.Furray, 163Okla. 204,205,21 Pac. (2d) 770 (1933). 839 Smith v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 197 Okla. 499, 501-502, 172 Pac. (2d) 1002 (1946). m Gates v. Settlers' Mill, Canal & Res. Co., 19 Okla. 83, 89-91, 91 Pac. 856 (1907). inGay v. Hicks, 33 Okla. 675, 682-685, 124 Pac. 1077 (1912); Owens v. Snider, 52 Okla. 772, 775, 778-781, 153 Pac. 833 (1915). ¦f.OUa. Laws 1949, Tit. 82, Chap. 11, p. 641; Stats., 1949 Cum. Supp., Tit. 82, §§ 1001 to 1019. 243 See supra, n. 229, p. 750. 241 Canada v. Shawnee, 179 Okla. 53, 54-57, 64 Pac. (2d) 694 (1936). 911611-51------49 |