WSP08452 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;1;11 38/. 184 Esscntillls ftn Optimum Use vf GroWl(l .; (lier UcsourCf:s against prior uses, but that the prior users by continuing to pump retained p3rt of their origin31 rights, Appropriati\'c rights aTC rccugnilcd ill SCH'rjtl \tVestcrll States where the lvatcr h<1... been declared public property and <IvJilable for use on the basis of priority ("first in time is first in rig'ht"). Some Eastern States have granted licenses to llse specified amounts of water for a specified period. as an exercise of police power in designated critical areas. Water rights based on actual use of the water are more suitable for effective ground-water management than are those based on lanuownership, IJccaw;c (her gelter;,IJ}' refer to specific qUJIHiLics or rates uf water use. .'\Iso. hy changing the tense from future indefinite to present definite they provide greater security for the investment required for the development and LIse of the water. For .':.everal d.ecades the trend in state water legislat~on has been toward increasing emphasis on rights based on actual development ;lnd use of the water, at the expense of water rights inherent in landowner. ship, Several recent dispatches from the "Vest, however, indicate that land- ownership is still an important basis for water rights, even in states that reg-a I'd appropriation a." the fundalllental uasis for a \.....ater ri~hL ]n Utah. where "all" water has been declared by statute to be public water and aV3il3ble for beneficial use solely by oppropri3tion, the Supreme Coun of the stateS has awarded to the landowner shallow water that produces plant life but "cannot be traced to lands other than that in which the water is found." And in New l\lexico, where appropriation has likewise been regarded as the sole basis for a right to surface water or ground WOlter, the >[3te Supreme Court in 19589 decreed that the town of Los Vegas h3d a paramount right to all the water needed for its continued growth, on the b3Sis of 0 Mexican coloniZ3tion ("pueblo") grant in 1835. The appropriative rights to surface water and ground water that arc n.'cognizcd hy \Vcslcrn States apply chiefly to water that origilli1t<.:..... ill lIlountainous areas, of which the Federal Government is the chief bnd- owner. These appropriations have been made with the consent of the United Sttltcs. as recorded ill (ongTcssiollal acts tllId Supreme Coun decisions. In the Pelton Dam decisionlO and other recent actions before the U. S. Supreme Court. however, it is evident that the Federal Government has not intended to relinquish any water rights as landowner in its reserved bnds. Questions of W<1tcr rig.Jlls ror Indian tribes-claimed on the basis of treaties, or priority of occupancy. or landownership-also have shaken the security of appropriative rights in sever,,1 tlreas. Fffeer of 'Vater Rights npon Optimum Use Experience in many stOltes indicates that \\.'ater rights Gln obstruct the attainment of a degree of manageriiJI authority necessary to achieve optimulll use of the ground-water resources. ]11 the well-w;'llc:rcd East, where there has heretofore been little regulation of water use and apparently little need for it, there is now considerable interest in water management, renecting the skyrocketing water requirements and corollary problems of water s.honages in many areas. But many state legislc1tures have hesitated to ;lrt. in part hecll1sc of 111lccrtJinty over existing \\"~Wr rights. The 'Ve.':.tcnl '':'Rion];ltl \.. \\'e.'itwood. 203 P. (:Zd) W.:2 (I~l..f9). 'lC:lrLWright et aT. \.. Puhlic Service Co. of N. Me". (J9:,)8), llot n:1 repol'ted. ]lOh:dcral Pml"cr COllllll. \. Orcg:oll. ~\-l!J lJ. S. !:lti (I~FI.~).