WSP07672 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 6ta~dardB of proficie~cy, to set bounds to the activities ~er~itted. to require proof of q\l81ifications fro," those '"ho .wo\.il<1. take \.ill the 0~cu'1ations ~nd to require thooe enga&ed to hold }icens~s. All this hBS co~e aJout t~rough organization and sui t~ble legislation b~sed. upon established scientific facts 2nd. evolved, over a coasiderable period of time. In the present alfiorphous state of kno>lledge in the field of >Feather cOlitrol it might be as~dng too much of the most learned jurist to req'~ire that he establish rules of organization and ccnd1.:ct for this ne"1 profession. Another instance of nor.-liability is found in the right of nrivate ~arties or govern- ffie~tal ~~its to defead themselves from natural elements evc~ tho'~h' the defensive measures caused in,j1.:ry to on.ers. A precedent ci ted is the right of a landholder to protect his holding from flood even tho~h su~h action diverts the water to another's lan~ and causes damage. A ?arty ~cting in this ~anner is absolved from liability if his mee.sures are purely defensive such as building levees to confine the ~ater to a 1.:sual channel as it passes his land. The doctrine holds that other lando"ners have b,.'th the right aI!d the res~onsi bili ty to take necessary and la>lful steps to protect their own property. In ap~lYing this doctrine to weather ~odifications, the obvious question arises as to >mat lengths >lo1.:1d be permissible to private and r,ublic parties ani agencies in protecting the.nselves agaiast storms, if their meesures led to in- jurious action of the >leather elsewhere. It see~s that the protective action in these cases would require measures that are not merely defonsive but tend to become of a oositive aggressive nature. Furthermore, other parties appear not to he.ve the natural ,?rotective measureS at hand against this ne"1 development as "'as the case during the evolution of the present legal doctrines. The doctrine of riparian rigbts also is claimed to be applicable in this field. Under this doctrine as evolved in the ccmmon law the holder of lend is entitled to the ase h,ithout interference of >Iater in any stream contigu~us to his land. provided the use made is beneficial and does not e~croach upon the similar rights of other land holders. ~he right does not disappear because of disuse or failure from the beginning of title to invoke the right. ~herefore the possessor of the right is entitled at a~ time. regarcless of past use, to the fullest possible beneficial utilization of the natural flo>r of water, subject only to similar rigtts of others and to limiting statutes enacted by the state. This is based upon the presumption that title '.,as acauired in expectation of right to all these 2.dvanta.ges. Then. it is argued. thGse rights ~ust root be im~aired by diminution of the natural stream flow bec~use of artificial restriction of rainfall. Same authorities go a step farther e.nil claim thet the doctrine cen be exteno.ed now to cover rainfall itself, merely substituting the natural precipitation upon the land for the natural flow of the stream adjacent to the land. This view has stand- ~ ing in the constitutional end st~tutory enactments of various states >rhich follow SS the riDarian doctrir.e. In Article ll~, Section 3 of the CaliforI!ia Constitution, l provisions respecting the conservation of water reso'J.rces are so broadly inclusive ~that rainfall seems definitely within their scope. It should be mention here that only a small number of states 'oase Nater la", u,on the riparian theoI'"J' They are, unless very recent changes he.ve occurred, California end l1ashington on the Pacific Coast and a solio. tier of plains states consisting of the Dakotas. Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The mountain states ".hich are the ",ost arid of al1. follow the so-called Colorado doctrine of appropriation. Fully es imoortant as the rights and liabilities of ?rivate parties are the powers and liabilities of governrr.entel agencies. These can be discussed briefly under three headings. First, constitutionality of public water statues has been uoheld consistently by the courts. Unde~ these statutes water has been declared th~ prop- erty of the public which >TaS authorized to determine ?nd regulate its use. It - . certainly is not far-fetched to cla.!m that a netura.l extension of these cauld Dermit a state to declare weather modification a public function. Host authorities s~em - 9 -