WSP04731 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

28 Table 3. - Water Withdrawals (WD) and Consumptive Use (CU) for 1975, 1985 and 2000, by Function, Missouri River Basin 1975 1985 2000 Purpose WD CU WD CU WD CU 1,000 acre-feet Municipal & Industrial 1,223 479 1,668 651 2,107 809 Rural Domestic 188 122 204 127 202 122 Manufacturing (Self-Supplied) 728 217 1,020 376 1,308 567 Mining 350 127 362 131 446 154 Irrigation 31,390 16,053 37,688 20,351 43,226 25,331 Livestock 489 480 653 643 826 814 Steam Electric 3,960 75 6,804 264 5,690 713 Missouri Basin Total 38,328 17,553 48,399 22,543 53,805 28,510 Source: 1975 National Water Assessment, Missouri Region State - Regional Future counting for some 90 percent of the Basin total In each time frame. Consumptive use by livestock and municipal and indust- rial users each comprise another 3 percent of total consump- tive use. Table 3 summarizes Missouri Basin gross withdrawals and consumptive use for seven major purposes for 1975, 1985 and 2000. Table 4 displays subbasin totals of gross withdraw- als and consumptive use for all functions for the same three time periods. Legal and Institutional Aspects Development and management of water resources has long been recognized as a responsibility to be shared with pri- vate interests, the States, and the Federal Government in the Missouri River Basin. Their resource objectives and programs are largely complementary, as are most of their water laws and policies, though areas of uncertainty and challenge exist. STATE WATER LAWS In the general field of water laws two fundamental doc- trines have been adopted by the States of the Basin reflecting in part the origin of those who formulated them, and also the variable climatic and hydrologic conditions found from the sub- humid east to arid west over the Basin. The common. law doctrine of riparian rights is based primarily on the ownership of land and uses of water thereon or contiguous to the stream. Under the riparian rights doctrine the owner of land contiguous to a natural stream or natural lake may use the waters for such purposes and in such quantities as he chooses, so iong as he does not appreciably diminish the flow or Impair the quality of water for downstream uses. Under the appropriation rights doctrine, the beneficial use of water is the basis, the measure, and the limit of the water right. It follows that the first beneficial appropriation in time is prior in right. Unlike the riparian doctrine, appropriations are for a definite rate of direct-flow diversion or storage. Olten the total quantity is specified as not to exceed a given acre. foot total per acre per season, or simply in total acre-feet, as in storage. Within the basin Minnesota and Missouri recognize primarily the riparian doctrine, while Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming have specifically repudiated it and established the doctrine of appropriation rights. The Iowa water rights law makes substantially all uses of water in the State subject to permit and administrative regulation as to diversion, storage, or withdrawal, over some period of time not to exceed 10 years. Kansas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota depend on the appropriation rights doctrine, but recognize the riparian doctrine in varying degrees in relation to the statutory rights, With respect to percolating ground water, there are three common- law rules which are applied variously throughout the Basin. First, there is the so.called "English rule" which givlls the overlying landowner the absolute ownership of water per. colatlng beneath the surface of his lands, Second is the so. called "American rule," which gives the overlying landowner the right to a "reasonable use" of such water. Third is the so- called "California rule," which gives the overlying landowner a correlative right to the use of the ground water underlying his land, which in times of shortage requires him to share with his neighbors whose lands overlie this water resource. The three States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri apply the rules of reasonable use to ground water, with Iowa and Minnesota requiring permits. Several State&--notably Col- orado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming-treat ground water use in a manner similar to the surface water appropriation system. Other Basin States apply minimal control over landowners' use of ground water, but usu- ally require permits. Further, the States of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming provide for designation of "controlled ground water areas" subject to more stringent management. INTERSTATE COMPACTS, COURT DECREES, AND INTERNATIONAL TREATY Where rivers cross State boundaries and as water use increases there may be problems in allocation of the interstate