FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y'VA-......J ...... ........... ......u.............. ...................., ..................... .......1'......"''''' ....... .................."'...........J d congressional intent to the contrary, is that the states have cy in choosing the water system each will follow and in the crea- fwater rights; accordingly, federal reserved water rights are nar- construed because they operate to set aside water from priation under state law.'. ~ reliance on the federal disclaimer concerning national control rer allocation, the states have adopted three general types of Ilaw systems: riparian, prior appropriation, and a hybrid combi- i of the riparian and prior appropriation systems. fnder the "natural flow rule" of riparian law, water flows were to ~ undiminished in quality or quantity, and any downstream ripa- ~ndowner could obtain an injunction against any person up- I who perceptibly depleted the volume of the stream.97 Many of >arian states have abandoned this strict principle because of its ty to support a human economy. Modern American riparian ctions follow the "reasonable use" doctrine, which allows deple- by riparians, and to some extent nonriparians, so long as the ions do not interfere with the reasonable uses of other riparians ~are the stream as it flows in a state of nature.'8 Reasonableness depends on a number offactors, such as purpose, economic and value of the use, the extent and amount of harm a use causes to riparian values, and the practicality of adjusting water quantities >articular use in order to protect instream values, such as fish, e, recreation, and water quality." When there is a shortage of " riparian users share pro rata in the reduction of water which controlled for use. Riparian water law generally favors "natu- :s" of water in the stream and de minimis uses apart from the I, such as domestic and stock water uses, which are not highly nptive.'oo rior appropriation .law, on the other hand, evolved for the pur- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 102-03 (1899). California v. United States, 43~ U.S. 645, 662 (1918); Ariwna v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 963); Federal Power Comm'n v. Oregon. 349 U.S. 435. 448 (1955). See United Stales v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 712 (1978); Slate v. Southwestern Water tion Dist.. 671 P.2d 1294. 1307 (Colo. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 944 (1984); United States County of Denver, 656 P.2d t, 25 (Colo. 1982). Tyler v. Wilkinson. 24 F. Cas. 472 (C.C.O.R.I. 1827) (No. 14.312). See. e.g.. Pyle v. Gilbert, 245 Ga. 403, 265 S.E.2d 584 (1980). S'ee RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS ~ 850A (1979). 1d.