The Richfield recorder. (Richfield, Idaho) 1909-1931, 1916-07-14
IN THE SU-
PREME COURT
Sustains the Oregon Water
Code Bill

Professor o. l.. Waller has made
the following informative summary
of the decision just rendered by the
United States supreme court in de-
claring the constitutionality of the
Oregon water code. This summary
as well as the opinion of the court is
given in full in the Washington
Farmer of June 29:
The decision of the supreme court
of the United States in the case OF
the Pacific Live Stock company vs.
Lewis ct al is of vital interest, not
only to the engineering profession,
but to the general public as well. 1t
holds constitutional the Oregon wa
ter code and defends the right of the
state to ascertain and establish rights
to the use of the waters of its streams
in simple, effective and comprehen-
sive manner.
Oregon, through her courts and
her legislature, has abrogated the old
English law of riparian rights and
has adopted rule which requires
that water shall be beneficially used
if one would retain title In other
words, beneficial use of water right,
and for a failure to use the water,
title reverts to the state and the wa
ter can be reappropriated by anyone
who needs it and will use it.
This law has been attacked from
every angle.
The vested interests, those who are
trying to get a hold of the water
rights of the state of Oregon for spec
ulative purposes, and who want to
hold said rights without using water,
have been putting up vigorous fight
to defeat the law so that they may
continue to speculate in the valuable
water rights which belong to the peo
pie of Oregon.
The sovereignty over and the para
mount title to the waters of the
streams is deemed to be in the state
which title is held in trust for all
lawful public uses.
1t is of interest of the people of
Washington to know that the Wash
ington water code commission in
1911, recommended bill to the 18th
legislature embodying the principles
of the Oregon water code. The bill
was vigorously attacked on the
ground that it was unconstitutional
A later report by the water code
commission was fought by substaG-
tial lobby on the same ground. The
parties who did most to defeat both
of these bills are large holders of wa
ter titles. They are not using the
water and are not willing that anyone
else should use it.
1t has been said that riparian
rights to water are vested rights, are
rights of property, and that the state,
through its legislature, can not
change them But this decision
plainly shows that it can, if it wishes
to.
Justice Brewer of the United States
supreme court says "A state may
change this commonlaw rule and per-
nit the appropriation of the flowing
waters for such purposes as it may
deem fit" ia U. S. 702-703.
The same Judge, in 206 U. S. "a,
describes the power of the state as
follows: "It may determine for itself
whether the common-law rule in re-
spect to riparian rights or that doc
trine which obtains in the arid re-
gions of the west of appropriation of
waters for the purpose of irrigation
shall control
Judge Works, in a senate docu-
ment, uses the following language:
''The ownership of flowing water and
the right to dispose of and to regulate
and control the use thereof within
their borders belong exclusively to
the states as a part of their sovereign
power, subject only, in case of navig-
able streams, to the power of the
federal government to regulate and
promote commerce between the
states'
In substantiation of this he cites
a long series of decisions from the
United States supreme court.