WSP01080 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and to reasonable use of the flood plains. The Council may cooperate with and assist local units of government in the establishment of encroach- ment limits, flood plain regulations and zoning or- dinances relating to flood plain areas within their jurisdiction. Flood plain information studies are completed or underway for several areas of the State. Reports have been prepared and published by the U. S. Corps of Engineers for streams at Cedar Rapids, Davenport and Ames. A study of the Iowa River at Iowa City was made by the Resources Council in 1960 and regulations based on the study and gov- erning use of the floodway and flood plains were adopted in 1962 by the City as part of its compre- hensive zoning ordinance (See Plate I, Iowa City Flood Plain Regulation). The ordinance permits only open-type uses in the flood way area and, in those flood plain areas not needed for conveyance, permits development consistent with the adjoining use district provided the area is filled to a specified elevation. Case Law Prior to the establishment of the Iowa water use per- mit system in 1957, the water law of the state was con- tained in decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court. The court has used the common law as the rule of decision in water resources cases. Although many provisions of the water rights law appear to have been drafted to preserve the common law, the effect of the water rights statute on the common law riparian doctrine has not been judi- cially established. Rules of law taken from leading court decisions rendered prior to enactment of the water rights law may therefore be useful in predicting the attitude of the Iowa court, particularly in those areas where the statute may be ambiguous or where the existence of a 'vested right' to a particular use is asserted. The doctrine of riparian rights has always prevailed in Iowa, attaching to any natural watercourse, a term which has been defined very broadly by the Iowa Supreme Court. Where water naturally and habitually follows a certain general path, within reasonable limits as to wid th, the line of flow is a natural watercourse (Hinkle v. Avery, gg Iowa 47). It need not have a definite channel or banks, a swale may be a natural watercourse (Hunt v. Smith, 23.8 Iowa 543, 28 N.W. 2d 213; Stouder v. Dashner, 242 Iowa 1340, 49 N .W. 2d 859). It need not be entirely natural but may be aided by the hand of man, (Falcon v. Boyer, 157 Iowa 745, 142 N.W. 427) as by deepening or straightening in a swale or stream (Logsdon v. Anderson, 239 Iowa 585, 30 N.W. 2d 787). An artifi. cial ditch, as a drainage ditch, may become a natural watercourse by lapse of time (IO years) as between pri- 18 vate individuals on principles similar to the creation of an easement by prescription (Nixon v. Welch, 238 Iowa 34, 24 N.W. 2d 476) but such rights may not be urged against the public (Droegmiller v. Olson, 241 Iowa 456, 40 N.W. 2d 292). On many occasions, the Iowa court has recognized the right of a riparian owner to have the water in a stream flow by or through his property in its natural state sub- ject only to the equal right of other riparian owners to make reasonable use of the water (Harp v. Iowa Falls Electric Co., 196 Iowa 317, 191 N.W. 520; Watt v. Robbins, 160 Iowa 587, 142 N.W. 387; Gibson & KJop- penstein v. Fischer & Orton, 68 Iowa 29, 25 N.W. 914; Decorah Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer, 49 Iowa 490). In de- te.rmining whether a particular use is reasonable the Iowa court has enumerated several criteria - what the use is for; its extent, duration, necessity, and its application; the nature and size of the stream, and the several uses to which it is put; the extent of the injury to the one pro- prietor, and of the benefit to the other; climatic condi- tions; the uses and customs of the neighborhood; con- venience in doing business; and indispensable public ne- cessity of cities and villages for drainage, and all other facts which may bear upon the reasonableness of the llse (Gehlen Brothers v. Knorr, 101 Iowa 700, 70 N.W. 757). Generally, riparian rights accrue only to the smallest abutting tract held under one chain of title leading to the present owner. The Iowa court has stated that a riparian owner is one "whose land abuts upon a river" (Peck v. Olsen Construction Co., 216 Iowa 519,245 N.W. 131). Owners of land riparian to a navigable or meandered stream own only to the ordinary high water mark, the State retaining title to the bed and banks (Shortell v. Des Moines Electric Co., 186 Iowa 469,172 N.W. 649). The court has defined the ordinary high water mark as the limit of the bed which the water occupies sufficiently long and continuously to wrest it from vegetation and destroy its value for agricultural purposes (Merrill v. Bd. of Supvr's of Cerro Gordo County, 146 Iowa 325, 125 N.W. 222: Solomon v. City of Sioux City, 243 Iowa 633, 51 N.W. 2d 420; Wilcox v. Pinney. 250 Iowa 1378,98 N.W. 2d 720). Although the Iowa court has experienced little diffi-. culty in enunciating and applying the classic riparian doctrines regarding uses of water which do not diminish supplies or impair quality, consumptive IJses of wa ter create more problems and doctrine concerning such uses is much less certain. The court has in such cases distin- quished between "natural" and "artitlcial" uses. Natural uses have been defined by the court as use for domestic purposes, including household uses, such as cleansing and washing, and supplying an ordinary num- ber of horses or stock with water. A riparian owner may take all of the water needed for these purposes even if al\ of the water in the stream is thereby consumed. All