Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130363
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:35:45+00:00

Document:
194 WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS PERTAINING TO WATERCOURSES the courts have recognized that the riparian doctrine is a part of the State water law, and at various times the legislature has referred on one occasion or another to riparian rights.159 Use of water for domestic purposes on riparian land has been involved in litigation; it has come to be accepted not only as a legitimate purpose but as a natural use superior to irrigation, an artificial use.160 The riparian right has been limited to use of the normal streamflow.161 The proposition that irrigation is a proper riparian purpose has aroused much contention in Texas. So far as opinions expressed in decisions of the high courts are concerned, there is no doubt that, until 1962, it had been regarded favorably, whether by dictum or by actual decision. However, unrelenting opposition finally resulted in forcing the riparian irrigation question as an essential issue of law in an important areawide adjudication in lower Rio Grande Valley. In the resulting Valmont Plantations case, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that lands riparian to the Lower Rio Grande, held under Spanish and Mexican grants, have no appurtenant right to irrigate with the river water.162 But this did not affect anything previously said with respect to such common law rights. Texas legislation has disclaimed any intent to impair vested riparian rights or rights of property but has recognized no riparian right in the owner of any land that passed out of State ownership after July 1, 1895.163 A 1967 statute has limited riparian rights, except for domestic or livestock purposes, to the extent of maximum actual application of water to beneficial use made during any calender year from 1963 to 1967.164 This legislation is similar to the general approach taken by the Oregon legislation limiting riparian rights, discussed below. Oregon. -Although the riparian doctrine is historically an important part of the water law of Oregon, State legislation, favorably construed by the courts, has effectively limited the extent and operation of the doctrine.165 Progressive modification of the common law doctrine by the courts was influenced by such factors as incompatibility of appropriative and riparian ls'See the earlier discussion under "Establishment of the Riparian Doctrine in the West-Early Development of the Riparian Doctrine in Specified Jurisdictions-Texas." 160 Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex 578, 585-590, 86 S. W. 733 (1905). l6lMotl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 111, 121-126, 286 S. W. 458 (1926). 162 Valmont Plantations v. State of Texas, 163 Tex. 381, 355 S. W. (2d) 502 (1962). 163Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 7507, 7619, and 7620 (1954). The Texas Supreme Court has said grantees of public lands from 1840, when the common law was adopted in Texas, to the passage of the first water appropriation act in 1889 became vested with riparian rights in the waters of contiguous streams. Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 107-108, 286 S. W. 458 (1926). 164 Or until the end of 1970 if works were under construction before the act's effective date. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a, § 4 (Supp. 1970). 165See Hutchins, Wells A., "The Common-Law Riparian Doctrine in Oregon: Legislative and Judicial Modification," 36 Oreg. Law Rev. 193 (1957).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 7542
 § 4