OCR Text |
Show extend their authority over the waters of navigable streams, or even tributar- ies thereofi in the administration of the asserted functions of their respec- tive offices, as a result of various Federal Laws based upon the constitution- al power of the Federal Government to control navigable waters* Doctrines of Water Law. - The doctrines or principles governing the uses of water vary in different sections of the United States, as do also the pro- blems involved. In the arid States of the West, where the principal use of water is for irrigation, the doctrine of "prior appropriation" obtains, where- as in the humid states, where needs for domestic water supplies, sanitation, power development, and navigation are of primary concern, the doctrine of "riparian ownership" is recognized. In areas lying within the so-called semi- arid regions, no little conflict has arisen between these two doctrines, which it has been difficult to reconcile and adjust. In general, however, laws and Court decisions within the States in which these regions occur have made it possible, in a measure, for an appropriates, or user of water* to secure re- cognition ofi and reasonable protection in, such uses. In addition to the interstate decisions, the United States Supreme Court in repeated decisions, dov/n to the California Oregon Power Company case in 1935* nas recognized the right of each State to adopt its own system of water law* The appropriation doctrine is an approved system of water law. In 1905 the Supreme Court stated^ concerning alteration of the common law doctrine in Utah: "This court must recognize the difference of soil and climateP which renders necessary these different laws in the states so situated." In the California Oregon Power Company case, also, it was stated that the desert la.nd legislation does not bind or purport to bind the States to any policy, but simply recognizes the doctrine of appropriation"and seeks to remove what otherwise might be an impediment to its full and successful operation." The trend of recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States indicates a tendency to modify both of these funadmental doctrines so as to permit an "equitable apportionment," as between States, of the available wa- ter furnished by an interstate stream. The uses and pollution of the waters of interstate streams, and the set- tlement of controversies between States, resulting from such.uses or claims, constitute at present (1939) one of the most urgent problems with which the States and the Federal Government are confronted. A conflict cf interests inevitably arises sooner or later on nearly every interstate stream. This fact becomes highly significant when it is realized that no general compre- hensive plan, with respect to the development of an interstate stream,- can be effective or satisfactory without cooperation between the States, and at times between the States and the Federal Government» The riparian doctrine of the common law of England was adopted in the United States at an early date, and always lias been the controlling princi- ple of law governing the use of water in the humid regions and in parts of the semi-arid states. Under this doctrine, each riparian proprietor is ^ Clark vs. Nash, 198 U. S. 36I. -81- |