|
<br />
<br />4, Case Law
<br />
<br />Prior to the establishment of the Iowa water use permit system
<br />in 1957, the water law of the state was contained in decisions of
<br />the Iowa Supreme Court, The court has used the common law
<br />as the rule of decision in water resources cases, Although many
<br />provisions of the water rights law appear to have been drafted to
<br />preserve the common law, the effect of the water rights statute
<br />on the common law riparian doctrine has not been judicially
<br />established, Rules of law taken from leading court decisions
<br />rendered prior to enactment of the water rights law may there-
<br />fore be useful in predicting the attitude of the Iowa court, par-
<br />ticularly in those areas where the statute may be ambiguous or
<br />where the existence of a 'vested right' to a particular use is
<br />asserted,
<br />
<br />The doctrine of riparian rights has always prevailed in Iowa,
<br />attaching to any natural watercourse, a term which has been
<br />defined very broadly by the Iowa Supreme Court, Where water
<br />naturally and habitually follows a certain general path, within
<br />reasonable limits as to width, the line of flow is a natural water-
<br />course (Hinkle v, Avery, 88 Iowa 47), It need not have a
<br />definite channel or banks, a swa1e may be a natural watercourse
<br />(Hunt v. Smith, 238 Iowa 543, 28 N, W. 2d 2l3; Stouder v,
<br />Dashner, 242 Iowa 1340, 49N,W, 2d859), It need not be
<br />entirely natural but may be aided by the hand of man, (Falcon
<br />v, Boyer, 157 Iowa 745, 142 N. W. 427) as by deepening or
<br />straightening a swale or stream (Logsdon v, Anderson, 239
<br />Iowa 585, 30 N, W. 2d 787), An artificial ditch, as a drainage
<br />ditch, may become a natural watercourse by lapse of time
<br />(10 years) as between private individuals on principles similar
<br />to the creation of an easement by prescription (Nixon v, Welch,
<br />238 Iowa 34, 24 N. W. 2d 476) but such rights may not be urged
<br />against the public (Droegmiller v. Olson, 24l Iowa 456, 40 N, W,
<br />2d 292),
<br />
<br />On many occasions, the Iowa court has recognized the right
<br />of a riparian owner to have the water in a stream flow by or
<br />through his property in its natural state subject only to the
<br />equal right of other riparian owners to make reasonable use
<br />of the water (Harp v, Iowa Falls Electric Co" 196 Iowa 317,
<br />191 N, W. 520; Watt v, Robbins, 160 Iowa 587, l42 N. W, 387;
<br />Gibson & Kloppenstein v, Fischer & Orton, 68 Iowa 29, 25 N. W,
<br />914; Decorah Woolen Mill Co, v, Greer, 49 Iowa 490), In
<br />
<br />14
<br />
|