<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 />
|