Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Whether expressed in written form, by codification or by <br />judicial precedent, water law is the product of custom and the <br /> <br />law of use. <br /> <br />The transferability of water rights depends entirely on an <br />enforceable legal system which vests a conveyable water right or <br />transferable contract right from seller to buyer. <br /> <br />Riparian water law is not well-suited to market <br /> <br />transactions. The common law riparian doctrine is the law of <br /> <br /> <br />continuous flow, and de minimis or reasonable use.' The <br /> <br />reasonable use modification to the natural flow riparian <br /> <br />principle allows riparians to consume water quantities, domestic <br /> <br />water use being preferred, so long as the uses of downstream <br />riparians are not unreasonably affected. This approach promotes <br />equity among riparians but excludes those whose property does not <br />abut the stream channel. Riparian water law was replaced in the <br /> <br />western united States by the appropriation doctrine, in reaction <br /> <br />to water scarcity and the necessity to remove water from the <br /> <br />stream, often over great distances, for use by farms, cities and <br />factories.' <br /> <br />Riparian water law has been severely criticized, because <br /> <br />that legal system restricts the use of water to riparian <br />landowners within the watershed, severely limits the amount of <br /> <br />, See Tvler v. Wilkinson, 24 F.Cas. 472 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (No. <br />14, 312); Dumont v. Kelloaa, 29 Mich. 420 (1974). <br /> <br />. See, United States v. New Mexico, 438 u.S. 696, 712 (1978); <br />California Oreaon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S. <br />142, 165 (1935); United States v. Gerlach Livestock Co., 339 U.S. <br />725, 745 (1950). <br /> <br />2 <br />