Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130595
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:41:07+00:00

Document:
426 APPROPRIATION OF WATER (c) Oregon. In 1955, the Oregon legislature created the State Water Resources Board, with powers and duties of major significance in the field of water law. Among several declarations of policy that the Board is directed to take into consideration is the following: "When proposed uses of water are in mutually exclusive conflict," preference is given first to human consumption purposes and next to livestock consumption. Thereafter it goes to other beneficial purposes in an order consistent with the public interest under the existing circumstances. The State Water Resources Board may, subject to existing rights and existing statutory preferential uses, prescribe preferences for the future for particular uses of any source of water supply in aid of highest and beneficial use thereof. Consideration must be given to natural characteristics and economy of the area, water requirements, type of proposed use as between consumptive and nonconsumptive uses, and other pertinent data.977 (d) Texas. In the allotment and appropriation of water, the public policy of the State is that preference and priority be given in the order listed above under "Order of preferences in individual States." This declaration, the Federal court at El Paso believed, simply regulates priorities prospectively in the subsequent issuance of permits, and does not affect outstanding permits duly issued.978 The statute further directs the Texas Water Rights Commission to observe the rule that as between applicants for water rights, preference be given not only in the order of preferential uses so declared,but that preference also be given those applications the purposes for which contemplate and will effectuate the maximum utilization of water and are designed to prevent waste of water.979 976Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 536.310(12) (Supp. 1969). The question of the applicability of this act with respect to competing applications appears to have been left unresolved in Phillips v. Gardner, 469 Pac. (2d) 42 (Oreg. App. 1970), discussed later under "Use of appropriated water: In times of shortage." 977/d § 536.340(3). 978El Paso County W. I. Dist. No. 1 v. El Paso, 133 Fed. Supp. 894, 907-908 (W. D. Tex. 1955), affirmed in part, reversed in part but not on the matter considered here, 243 Fed. (2d) 927 (5th Cir. 1957), certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 820 (1957). 979Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7472c (1954). In City of San Antonio v. Texas Water Comm'n, 407 S. W. (2d) 752, 764 (Tex. Sup. Ct. 1966), the court said that art. 7472c "specifically admonishes the Water Rights Commission 'that as between applicants for rights to use the waters of the State, preference be given not only in the order of preferential uses declared [by Article 7471], but that preference also be given those applications the purposes for which contemplate and will effectuate the maximum utilization of waters and are designated and calculated to prevent the escape of waters without contribution to a beneficial public service.' San Antonio answers this by arguing that if Article 7472c gives the Commission discretion to ignore the priorities established in Article 7471, then Article 7472c is unconstitutional because such purpose is not contained in the caption of the Act. The question of violating the order of priority of uses is not presented in this case."

References: § 536
 v. 
 § 536
 v. 
 art. 7472
 v. 
 art. 7472