OCR Text |
Show there was one committee member for each problem, and vice versa, so that the committee member had only the job of unifying the discussions and eliminating some of the duplication that was inevitable because of the interrelation of the five problems. 1„ Is the doctrine of appropriation as contained in Utah law the most desirable and beneficial to Utah? It seems to the committee to be somewhat academic to argue at this time the relative merits of the doctrine of appropriation. Utah courts recognized rights acquired by appropriation as early as 1870, and repudiated the common- law riparian doctrine ( prevalent in the east) in 1891. A statute passed in 1880 recognized accrued rights to water acquired by appropriation, and in 1897 the legislature provided by statute for future appropriation of water by individuals. Thus the doctrine is so long established and so thoroughly established that it is the basis for practically all water rights. It is unlikely that the courts or the people of the state could countenance any major change that might jeopardize these vested rights. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there is sound scientific support for accepting the doctrine of appropriation and repudiating the doctrines that proclaim water rights to be appurtenant to landownership. Water rights in most states are based on ownership of land contiguous to a stream or other source, or overlying a ground- water reservoir; the right does not depend upon putting the water to use, and thus is not lost by non- use. The water- right doctrines in those states have been developed under conditions of relative abundance of water. The habitable areas of Utah, and of most other western states, are valleys and lowlands where precipitation is perennially insufficient for agriculture. Farmers must look beyond their own lands for water to supplement the inadequate precipitation, and cities and industries likewise are dependent to a large extent upon water that originates in higher lands, where precipitation - 11- |