| OCR Text |
Show -1+3- an initial legislative act 10^- adopting the common law of England. The admission of Minnesotal85 was upon almost identical conditions with that of Wisconsin in respect to navigation rights and jurisdiction on the Mississippi, Lake Superior, and other border waters* +Cal. Stats, I85O, p. 219, California1-was admitted into the Union in the year 1850* By later amendments the California constitution reserved the right of the people to fish in the waters upon the public lands; declared the appropri- ation of waters for sale, rental or distribution to be a public use, and all navigable water fronts to be subject to the right of eminent domain in the State; directed all tidelands useful for navigation within two miles of any incorporated town or city to be withheld from sale or grant to private persons; and finally the people adopted an amendment in the year 1928 completely reversing the prior public policy of the State, existing ever since the adoption of the English common law with its well known riparian rights, which amendment is as follows (Art, XIV, S3)i "Sec. J, It is hereby declared that because of the conditions prevailing in this state the general welfare requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised wi-th a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the peo- ple and for the public welfare. The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this state is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of di- version of water. Riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, bu*t to no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used con- sistently with this section, for.the purposes for which such lands are, or m.ay be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and beneficial uses; PROVIDED , HOViEVER, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable use of water of the stream to which his laixd is riparian under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or of depriving any appropriator of water to which he is lawfully entitled. This section shall be self-executing, and the legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section contained." QUERY* In a justiciable controversy between California and any one of fane neighboring States, all committed to like internal policies, would the rule of decision in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 1+19, 1+2 Sup Ct. 552, 66 L. Ed. 999 (1921), 259 U.S. 1+96, 66 L. Ed. 1026 (1921), 260 U.S. 1, 1+3 Sup. Ct. 2, 66 L. Ed. 999 (1922), now apply instead of the rule in Kansas v. Colorado, 19? U.S. 125, 22 Sup. Ct. 552, 1+6 L. Ed. 838 (1902), 206 U.S. 1+6,-27 Sup. Ct. 655, 53. L. Ed. 95^ (19^7)# which x^resumably would have applied as long as California, like Kansas, was committed to riparian rights and the neighboring States to prioxity of appropriation? 105Act of Feb. 26, 1857, 11 Stat. at L. 166, 1+ Thorpe«s Constitutions, 19^8; Act of May 11, I858, 11 Stat. at L. 285, k Thorpe's Constitutions, 1990; 1+ Thorpe*s Constitutions, 1991 et-seq. Minnesota ms admitted into the Union in the year I858. Act of May 11, I858, 11 Stat. at Lt 285, k Thorpe»s Constitutions, 1990. |
