Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139145
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:09:47+00:00

Document:
763 the water law of the State. The common-law doctrine was stated by the supreme court as early as 1863.325 Contention over the question as to whether irrigation was a "natural" use of the water, extending over many years, was settled by holding that domestic uses had preference over irrigation and manufacturing uses as among riparians, and that subject to this preferred right of "natural" domestic use by other riparian proprietors, each riparian owner was entitled to make a rea- sonable use of the stream for irrigation purposes, all having equal rights.326 The riparian right is a part and parcel of the land,327 but is not inseparable from riparian land because it may be sold to or con- demned by an appropriator.828 Vested rights of riparian proprietors have been protected against infringement by claimants under legislative acts.329 However, while the riparian owner who holds a valid riparian right has first claim upon the quantity of water reasonably sufficient for his needs, as against the excess the statutory appropriation is effec- tive.380 The supreme court in 1926, in Motl v. Boyd,331 held that riparian waters are the waters of the ordinary flow and underflow of the stream, and that stream waters when they rise above the line of highest ordinary flow are flood waters to which riparian rights do 826 Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304, 309, 315, 84 Am. Dec. 631 (1863). 826 WatkinsLand Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 585-589, 86 S. W. 733 (1905). Earlier Texas decisions were discussed in the Watkins case. The reasonable needs of riparian owners for domestic and stock-watering purposes have prefer- ence over irrigation requirements of other riparian owners: Martin v. Burr, 111 Tex. 57, 62, 228 S. W. 543 (1921). Apportionment of water among riparian owners: Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markham Irr. Co., 154 S. W. 1176, 1180 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913). See also Biggs v. Miller, 147 S. W. 632, 636 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912). 827 Parker v. El Paso County W. I. Dist No. 1, 116 Tex. 631, 642-643, 297 S. W. 737 (1927); Zavala County W. I. Dist. No. 3 v. Rogers, 145 S. W. (2d) 919, 923 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940). See Bigham Bros. v. Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co.,91 S. W. 848, 853 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905). ™ Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markham Irr. Co., 154 S. W. 1176, 1181 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913). 829 Mud Creek Irr., Agricultural & Manufacturing Co. v. Vivian, 74 Tex. 170, 173, 11 S. W. 1078 (1889); Barrett v. Metcalfe, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 247, 252-253, 33 S. W. 758 (1896; writ of error refused, 93 Tex. 679); Bigham Bros. v. Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co., 100 Tex. 192, 201, 97 S. W. 686 (1906); Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markham Irr. Co., 154 S. W. 1176, 1180 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913). mBiggs v. Lee, 147 S. W. 709, 710-711 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912; writ of error dismissed, 150 S. W. xix). See also Santa Rosa Irr. Co. v. Pecos River Irr. Co., 92 S. W. 1014, 1016 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906; writ of error denied); McGhee Irr. Ditch Co. v. Hudson, 85 Tex. 587, 589-592, 22 S. W. 398, 967 (1893); Biggs v. Leffingwell, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 665, 667-668, 132 S. W. 902 (1910). 881 Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 108, 111, 124, 286 S. W. 458 (1926). See also Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Arsenaux, 116 Tex. 603, 610, 611, 297 S. W. 225 (1927); Parker v. El Paso County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 116 Tex. 631, 643, 297 S. W. 737 (1927); Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 28, 296 S. W. 273 (1927); Chicago, R. I. & Gulf Ry. v. Tarrant County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 1, 123 Tex. 432,449, 73 S. W. (2d) 55 (1934).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.