|
<br />. 1'\ OJ"
<br />I)" i ,.)
<br />
<br />public domain. or (2) the date beneficial use of
<br />water was (or will be) initiated by th~ riparian. This
<br />issue is 01 major importance as it defines how
<br />conflicts between former riparians and existing
<br />appropriators will be resolved.
<br />In California. riparian.appropriative conflicts
<br />are resolved on the basis of priority. The appro-
<br />priator's priority depends on the dale of benefi-
<br />cial use, whereas the riparian's priority is the dale
<br />the land was severed from the public domain.
<br />even jf beneficial use was nol initialed until much
<br />later. Thus, a riparian could have initiated the
<br />beneficial use of waler after an appropriator but
<br />have an earlier priority dale if the riparian land
<br />was severed prior to the appropriator's initiation
<br />of beneficial use. Legislation integrating riparian
<br />rights into the appropriative system in other
<br />western states, however, does not spell out how a
<br />riparian's priority date should be determined.
<br />
<br />Presumably the priority date would have been
<br />assigned for riparian claims on the same basis as
<br />for other water claims, which in most cases would
<br />be the date of initial beneficial use.
<br />
<br />SUMMARY
<br />
<br />The experience of other western dual doctrine
<br />states provides little guidance in legislatively
<br />integrating riparian rights into the appropriative
<br />system in Nebraska, primarily because most dual
<br />doctrine states completely integrated riparian
<br />rights into the appropriative system when they
<br />initIally enacted appropriation legislation.
<br />Exempting riparian stockwatering claims from
<br />water right adjudication procedures, however, is
<br />a feature 01 riparian rights integration in other
<br />dual doctrine states which Nebraska policy
<br />makers may wish to consider.
<br />
<br />FOOTNOTES
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />But see I Hutchins, Water Rights laws in
<br />the Nineteen Western States. (U.S. Dep't
<br />of Agric. Misc. Pub. No.1 206, 1971) al 192
<br />(Courts in some pure appropriation states
<br />have ruled or suggested that a riparian
<br />landowner may use surface water so long as
<br />appropriators are not interfered with); 192-
<br />93 (courts have used riparian doctrine as
<br />source of law in defining the rights of
<br />riparian proprietors not addressed by appro-
<br />priation).
<br />Eidemiller Ice Co. v. Guthrie. 42 Neb. 238, 60
<br />N.W. 717 (1894) (court ruled that riparian
<br />had right to harvest ice).
<br />Lux v. Hagen, 69 Cat. 391, lOP. 674 (1886);
<br />Smith v. Stanolmd Oil & Gas Co. 197 Okla.
<br />499.172 P.2d 1002 (1946).
<br />2 Hutchins at 106-20.
<br />2 Hutchins at 120nn625.29.
<br />Los Angeles v. Aitken, 10 CaL App. 2d 460,
<br />52 P.2d 585 (1935), hearing den. 3e Cal.
<br />App. 2d 116,97 P.2d 274 (1939); Lakeside
<br />Irr. Co. v. Kirby, 166 S.W. 715 (Tex. Civ. App.
<br />1914); In re Martha lake Water Co., 152
<br />Wash. 53, 277 P. 382 (1929); Petition of
<br />Clinton Water Dist.. 36 Wash. 2d 284. 218
<br />P. 309 (1950).
<br />Elsinore v. Temescal Water Co.. 36 Cal. App.
<br />2d 1 16, 97 P. 274 (1939): Prather v. Hoberg.
<br />24 CaL2d 549. 150 P.2d 405 (1944); Martm
<br />v. Brit/shAm. Oil Co., 1870kla. 193, 102 P.2d
<br />124 (1940); Sayles v. Mitchell, 60 S.D. 592,
<br />245 N..W. 390 (1932); Great Am. Dev. Co. v.
<br />Smlth_ 303 SW2d861 !Tex. Civ. App. 1957\
<br />
<br />2.
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />4
<br />5
<br />6.
<br />
<br />7.
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wash, 2d 815, 296 P.2d
<br />1015(1956); Bach v. Sarich, 74 Wash. 2d
<br />575,445 P.2d 648 (1966).
<br />Diversion Lake Club v. Health, 127 Tex. 129,
<br />86 S.W.2d 44 1 (1935); Curry v. Hill, 460 P.2d
<br />933 (Okla. 1969); Snively v. Jaber. 48 Wash.
<br />2d 615, 296 P.2d 1015 (1956).
<br />See generally I Hutchins at 210.25.
<br />Wasser burger v. Coffee. 180 Neb. 149, 141
<br />NW.2d 736 (1966).
<br />Kan. Stat. Anno. 982a.704a (Supp. 1979);
<br />Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, 91-A; Oreg. Rev. Stat.
<br />9539.010; Vernon's Texas Code Ann., Water
<br />Code 95.303; Rev. Code Wash. Ann.
<br />,90.14.0101090.14.121.
<br />State ex reI. Emery v. Knapp, 167 Kan. 546,
<br />207 P.2d 440 (1 949); In re Wilfow Creek, 74
<br />Oreg. 592,144 P. 505 (1914); In re Hood
<br />River, 114 Oreg. 112,227 P. 1065 (1924);
<br />California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver
<br />Portland Cement Co., 73 Fed. 2d 555 (9th
<br />Cir..1934).
<br />See generally, Anderson. Riparian Rights
<br />in California (Governor's Comm'n to
<br />Review Cal. Water Rights Law Staff Paper
<br />No.4. Nov. 1977).
<br />Kan. Stat. Anno. 982a-709 (1977): Okla.
<br />Slat. Ann. tit. 60, ~60; Oreg. Rev. Stat.
<br />~ 539.01 0; Vernon's Texas Code Ann.. Water
<br />Code ,5.303.
<br />See Hutchins. The Common. Law Riparian
<br />Doctrine in Oregon: Legislative and Ju-
<br />dicial Modification, 36 Oreg. L. Rev. 193.
<br />218-29 119571
<br />
<br />9
<br />10
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />12
<br />
<br />13
<br />
<br />14
<br />
<br />15
<br />
<br />3.3
<br />
|