WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

./' 0063 abstract constitutional or statutory interpretation. See California v. United States, supra, 438 U.S. at 6A8. The un~que geography, history and cl~mate of the western states and the ownership by the federal government of substantial land within those states have shaped many of the relevant questions and conclusions. In order to analyze the scope of the federal government's rights to unappropriated water in the western states, it is therefore necessary to look in some detail at the development of western water law and the role played by the federal government in managing and disposing of the western public lands. A. Development of -Appropriative- Water Rights 1n the Western States Because of different climatic, topographic and geographic conditions and the differing demands of agricultural and economic development, the arid and semi-arid western states have developed legal doctrines and administrative machinery governing water rights that bear little resemblance to those developed in the humid eastern states_ 5/ Most of the eastern states have adopted, with some variations and modifications," the common law riparian theory of water rights. In general, under a riparian theory, the right to use water goes with ownership of land abutting a stream. Each owner of land on a stream has the right to make reasonable use of the water, but cannot interfere unreasonably with the right of a down- stream owner to the continued flow of the stream. For example, if the riparian owner diverts the water, he must return it to its natural channel, undiminished except for reasonable consumptive uses. See 1 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights SS 4.3, 16.1 (l967)-rEereinafter cited as -Clark"); F. Trelease, 5/ Land is generally considered arid or semi-arid if it cannot be cultivated without irrigation. See Note, -Federal- State Conflicts Over the Control of Western-waters,- 60 Colum. L. Rev. 967 n.2 (1960) (hereinafter cited as -Colum. Note-). Seventeen western states are usually included in this category: Arizona, California, Colorado, IdahO, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, WaShington, and Wyoming. These states, where water is relatively scarce, have developed systems of legal rights to water based on the doctrine of -appropriation- or capture of the water for a productive use. See discussion at pp. 8-11 infra. The remaining thirty-one contlguous states have adopted some form of a riparian system for the allocation of water rights, based on ownership of land. See discussion at pp. 7-8 infra. Alaska appears to have largely rejected a ripar~an doctrine in favor of an appropriative system, ,while Hawaii has a mixed system based on custom, ancient rights and legislation. See 1 Clark, supra, S 4. 7 -