Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l5 <br /> <br /> <br />000786 <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />determining whether a particular use is r'easonable the Iowa court <br />has enumer'ated several criteria - what the use is for; its extent, <br />dur'ation, necessity, and its application; the natur'e and size of <br />the stream, and the several uses to whieh it is put; the extent of <br />the injur'y to the one proprietor, and of the benefit to the other; <br />climatic conditions; the uses and customs of the neighborhood; <br />convenience in doing business; and indispensable public necessity <br />of cities and villages for dr>ainage, and all other facts which may <br />bear upon the r'easonableness of the use (Gehlen Brothers v, <br />KnorT, 101 iowa 700, 70 N. W, 757), <br /> <br />Gener-ally, dparian rights accr'ue only to the smallest abutt- <br />ing tract held under one chain of title leading to the present <br />owner, The iowa court has stated that a riparian owner is one <br />"whose land ahuts upon a river" (Peck v. Olsen Consty'uetion Co" <br />216 Iowa 5lD, 2'1:' N. W. l:~l). Owners of land riparian to a <br />navigable or meandered stream own only to the ordinary high <br />water mark, the State retaining title to the bed and banks <br />(Shortell v, Des Moines I';leetrie Co., 18G Iowa 460, 172 N. w. <br />640). The couf't has defined the ordinary high water mark as <br />the limit of the bed which the water occupies sufficiently long <br />and continuously to wrest it fr'om vegetation and destroy its <br />value for agricultural purposes (Merrill v, Bd, of Supvr's, of <br />Cerro Gordo County, 14G Iowa 325, 125 N. W. 222; Solomon v, <br />City of Sioux City, 24:~ Iowa G3:~, 51 N, W. 2d 420; Wilcox v, <br />Pinney, 2:'0 Iowa 1378, DB N, W, 2d 720). <br /> <br />Although the Iowa court has experienced little difficulty in <br />enunciating and applying the classic riparian doctrines <br />regarding uses of water which do not diminish supplies or <br />impair quality, consumptive uses of water create more pro- <br />blems and doctrine concerning such uses is much less certain, <br />The court has in such cases distinguished between "natural" <br />and "a rtificial" uses, <br /> <br />Natural uses have been defined by the court as use for <br />domestic purposes, including household uses, such as <br />cleansing and washing, and supplying an ordinary number of <br />horses or stock with water, A dparian owner may take all of <br />the water needed for these purposes even if all of the water in <br />the stream is thereby consumed, All other uses of water are <br />"artificial" and are always subordinate to the natural use, <br />Any riparian owner putting water to an artificial use must do <br />