Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130183
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:28:26+00:00

Document:
14 STATE WATER POLICIES extent to which the appropriation doctrine also may apply to other sources of water is considered later. See chapter 7.) Most of these statutes, as noted above (see "Public Supervision over Waters-Supervisory Functions"), vest centralized administration of this function in State agencies. In each of these Western States there are also high court decisions that recognize the right of appropria- tion. The aggregate of these decisions comprises a large body of case law. Appropriation of water: Priority of the right.-By the constitutions of New Mexico and Wyoming, priority of appropriation, without qualification, is declared to give the better right.86 The principle of priority is declared in Colorado and Idaho likewise, but with certain exceptions in times of water shortage. (See "Preferences in Use of Water," below.)87 Aside from certain deviations made applicable in some of the water appropriation statutes under exceptional circumstances, the principle of "First in time, first in right" prevails throughout the statutory and case law of the West. Riparian doctrine: Repudiated. -The constitution of Arizona declares that the common law doctrine of riparian water rights shall not obtain or be of any force or effect in the State.88 In 1887-a quarter century prior to statehood- the Territorial legislature of Arizona had repudiated the riparian doctrine,89 and the declaration in the State constitution restated the provision in substantially identical language. The courts of the compact group of eight "generally more arid" States have generally repudiated the riparian water-rights doctrine as unsuited to the conditions within these jurisdictions.90 (See chapters 6 and 10). Riparian doctrine: Recognized and limited. -The courts were chiefly responsible for creating the riparian water law of the West. While generally repudiating this doctrine in the eight "generally more arid" States as noted above, they have recognized its existence in the other 11 States-although within limitations, the nature and extent of which have varied considerably from one jurisdiction to another. These limitations often have resulted from or have been influenced by State legislative or constitutional provisions. A brief discussion of such provisions is included below. In a number of States, various questions regarding the effect or validity of these limitations have not been resolved by the courts. This is explained more fully later. (See chapter 6.) 86N. Mex. Const., art. XVI, § 2; Wyo. Const., art. VIII, § 3. "Colo. Const., art. XVI, § 6; Idaho Const., art. XV, § 3. 88Aiiz. Const., art. XVII, § 1. 89 Terr. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3198 (1887). 90 Arizona: Clough v. Wing, 2 Ariz. 371, 380-381, 17 Pac.453 (1888); Colorado: Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, 446-447 (1882); Idaho: Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 490-495, 101 Pac. 1059 (1909); Montana: Mettler v. Ames Realty Co., 61 Mont. 152, 157-158, 165, 166, 201 Pac. 702 (1921); Nevada: Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev. 78, 84-88, 6 Pac. 442 (1885); New Mexico: Trambley v. Luterman, 6 N. Mex. 15, 25, 27 Pac. 312 (1891); Utah: Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah 215, 225-226, 26 Pac. 290 (1891); Wyoming: Moyer \. Preston, 6 Wyo. 308, 318-319, 44 Pac. 845 (1896).

References: § 2
 § 3
 § 6
 § 3
 § 1
 § 3198
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.