Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139147
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:39:56+00:00

Document:
765 land.337 The Texas Court of Civil Appeals in 1948 adhered to that principle, but held that such ownership does not include the right to intercept and waste percolating water to the detriment of an adjoining landowner, waste of natural resources being against the public policy of the State.338 Two statutes providing for the regulation of water wells, in order to prevent waste of water and pollution of ground-water supplies, under the administration of the Board of Water Engineers, have been in existence for a number of years.339 In 1949 the legislature added to the water control and improvement district act a section authorizing the creation of underground water conservation districts, their purpose being the conservation, preservation, protection, and recharging and the prevention of waste of ground water in underground reservoirs or subdivisions thereof that have been designated by the Board of Water Engineers.340 The district may issue permits to drill wells, but no landowner may be denied a permit to drill a well on his own land and produce water therefrom, subject however to the district's rules and regulations designed to prevent waste. The statute specifically recog- nizes the ownership and rights of the owner of land in ground water, subject to the rules and regulations of the district; and it specifically provides that the priorities and provisions of the law of surface water shall not apply to ground water. The water appropriation act of 1917 authorized the Board of Water Engineers, on petition of any water user, to make a determination of the relative rights to the use of waters of a stream or other source of supply; that appeals might be taken to the courts from the Board's order, the order to be in force pending the determination of the appeal; and that the Board might create water districts and appoint water commissioners to distribute water to the users in accordance with its determinations.341 The supreme court in 1921, in Board of Water Engineers v. Mc- Knight,342 held that those portions of the statute relating to determina- tions of rights were invalid as attempting to vest judicial powers in a branch of the executive department of the State without the express permission of the Constitution; an inquiry involving the most intricate 337 Houston & Texas Central Ry. v. East, 98 Tex. 146, 149, 81 S. W. 279 (1904); Texas Co. v. Giddings, 148 S. W. 1142, 1144 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912); Farb v. Theis, 250 S. W. 290, 292 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923) - Texas Co. v. Burkett,W Tex. 16,29, 296 S. W. 273 (1927). 338 Cantwell v. Zinser, 208 S. W. (2d) 577, 579 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948). 339 Tex. Vernon's Ann. Civ. Stats., arts. 7600 to 7616; Vernon's Ann. Penal Code, art. 848a. 340 Tex. Laws 1949, ch. 306, amending Laws 1925, ch. 25, to include § 3c (Vernon's Ann. Civ. Stats., art. 7880-3c). 341 Tex. Laws 1917, ch. 88. 842Board of Water Engineers v. McKnight, 111 Tex. 82, 92-97, 229 S. W. 301 (1921).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 848
 § 3
 art. 7880
 v.