Laserfiche WebLink
<br />legislative and development action programs have re- <br />sulted in increased attention to matters of restoring and <br />sustaining water quality. and for water to sustain and <br />enhance recreation, fish. and wildlife, and the general <br />environment. <br />In the general fleld of water law in (he basin. two <br />fundamental but opposing doctrines are found. The <br />common-law doctrine of riparian rights is based on <br />ownership of lands contiguous to a stream without <br />regard to the uses, if any, to which the water is put, <br />and with no concern for time of su~h uses. On the other <br />hand, the doctrine of prior appropriation disregards the <br />ownership of riparian lands. Rather. this doctrine is con- <br />cerned with the uses to which water is put, the time at <br />which such uses first were undertaken, and the diligence <br />with which water utilization has continued. <br />Under the riparian rights doctrine, the owner of land <br />contigyous to a natural stream or natural lake may use <br />the waters for such purposes and in such quantities as he <br />chooses, so long as his use does not appreciably diminish <br />the flow or impair the quality of water for downstream <br />uses. The riparian owners right is the same as all others <br />on that stream. Thus, his right is not acquired by actual <br />use of the water and is not lost by failure to use it. <br />Under the appropriation rights doctrine, the benen- <br />cial use of water is the basis, the measure, and the limit <br />of the water right. Therefore. the first beneficial appro- <br />priation in time is prior in right. A right is perfected only <br />by actual use and is subject to loss if the use is discon- <br />tinued or abandoned. Appropriated water may be used <br />either on lands contiguous to a stream or on lands or for <br />other purposes at some distance removed. <br />In the Missouri Basin two states. Minnesota and <br />Missouri, continue to recognize primarily the riparian <br />doctrine. while Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming have <br />specifically repudiated it and have established the doc. <br />trine of appropriation rights. The Iowa water rights law <br />makes substantially all uses of water in the state subject <br />to permit and administrative regulation as to diversion, <br />storage, or withdrawal over some period of time not to <br />exceed 10 years. The states of Kansas, Nebraska, and <br />North and South Dakota depend on the appropriation <br />rights doctrine, but recognize the riparian doctrine in <br />varying degrees in relation to the statutory rights. In <br />these four states a riparian landowner could claim a <br />water rig.l-tt to the extent of his reasonable use. bm :JI] <br />waters in excess thereof remained subject to appropria- <br />tion, However, Kansas passed legislation in 1945 and <br />North and South Dakota in 1955 which provided that <br />thereafter riparian landowners were to be governed by <br />the same laws and would be obliged to fotlow the same <br />appropriation procedures as non-riparian landowners. <br />This legislation did not apply to landowners who were <br />exercising or developing their riparian water rights at the <br />time the legislation was enacted. It is significant that in <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />the two exclusively riparian states, "and the one water- <br />permit state, precipitation is reasonably heavy and sur- <br />face water supplies stiU are relatively plentiful. By <br />contrast, in substantial portions of the other seven states <br />precipitation is relatively light, and the supplies of sur- <br />face water are comparatively limited. Under such natural <br />conditions and high potential water usage, the reliance <br />of these seven states, in whole or in part, on the appro- <br />priation doctrine is understandable, Clearly the irrigation <br />of vast areas of land and many other industrial develop- <br />ments, some removed many miles from existing natural <br />streams. would have been difficult if not impracticable <br />under the common-law riparian doctrine. <br />or the seven states in the basin that recognize the <br />appropriation rights doctrine, all except Montana have <br />provided a central state agency for the administration of <br />surface water rights, and for some the administration of <br />groundwaters. This agency is directly responsible for <br />receiving and processing applications or filings for water <br />rights. Further, it polices the streams and diversion works <br />as necessary to guard against violations of water rights <br />that have been granted and put into active use. In <br />Montana, provision for the administration of surface <br />water rights is a responsibility of the district courts. but <br />the groundwater code is administered by tht: Water <br />Resources Board. <br />While the general adequacy of water supplies per- <br />mitted more liberal laws and policies during the early <br />development periods in the 10 states of the basin, time <br />has brought reasonably full water utilization in some <br />areas. This has imposed the need and mounting strin- <br />gency in the provisions and administration of water <br />laws and policies. Also, as surf?ce water supplies ap' <br />proached fuller utilization, and especially for areas not <br />having access to them, greater and greater attention has <br />been given to groundwater availability and utilization <br />and to laws and techniques of management governing <br />its use for many purposes. Currently there is growing <br />evidence of the interrelationships in occurrence and <br />usage of surface and groundwaters; further, there is a <br />growing body of state law and pending legislation to <br />cope with problems or rights thereto and conflicts in <br />surface and groundwater usage and of overall water <br />right administration. <br />Increased water usage has led to within-State and interstate <br />litigation, and to many agreements, interstate compacts, and <br />court decrees affecting larger water-use areas and affected <br />States of the basin. Within the Missouri River Basin. Colorado <br />and Wyoming are parties to two compacts and two water <br />adjudications, and Wyoming became party with Nebraska to <br />the Upper Niobrara River Compact with its approval by the <br />Congress in ] 969. Nebraska is involved also in three other <br />operating compacts, in one pending compact, and in one Sup- <br />reme Court adjudication. South Dakota. North Dakota. and <br />Montana are involved in one compact each and South Dakota <br />with a compact now in negotiation with Nebraska. All of these <br />