Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130392
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:45:03+00:00

Document:
INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE DUAL WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS 223 An important limitation to reasonable and necessary use of water by a riparian as against an appropriator was made in 1912. Riparian owners were entitled to quantities of water reasonably sufficient for irrigation, stockraising, and domestic purposes, waters in excess thereof being subject to statutory appropriation.301 A method of distributing waters of Pecos River to both riparian and nonriparian lands according to a schedule of rotation of the entire flow, rather than by simultaneous diversions of segments thereof, received judicial approval.302 A 1967 Texas statute has restricted the exercise of riparian rights to the ex- tent of the maximum actual application of water to beneficial use without waste made during any calender year from 1963 to 1967, inclusive (or until the end of 1970 if works were under construction before the act's effective date).303 But this does not apply to the use of water for domestic or livestock purposes. Washington From the earliest times in Washington, the dual systems of water rights-appropriation and riparian-were recognized and applied in actual controversies. This was and is a continuing process. The earlier holdings were to the effect that appropriations made on the public domain of the United States took precedence over riparian rights of lands that subsequently passed to private ownership.304 A principle comple- mentary to the foregoing-of equally vital importance-was early announced to the effect that an entryman who settled upon public land and acquired title thereto by complying with the laws of the United States was entitled to the common law rights of a riparian proprietor, as against subsequent appropriators of the water, from the date of his occupancy with intent to acquire title thereto from the Government.305 These complementary principles were summarized in a decision rendered in 1923.306 301 Biggs v. Lee, 147 S. W. 709, 710-711 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912, error dismissed). 302 Ward County W. I. Dist. No. 3 v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. 1, 237 S. W. 584 588 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921), reformed and affirmed, 117 Tex. 10, 14-16, 295 S. W. 917 (1927). 303 If valid under existing law, claims for such rights as required shall be filed with the Texas Water Rights Commission to prevent their being extinguished. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a, § 4 (Supp. 1970). Previously existing legislation has disclaimed any intent to impair vested rights or rights of property. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 7507 and 7620 (1954). Relevant provisions in the 1967 statute include Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a, § § 12 and 14 (Supp. 1970). 304Geddis v. Parrish, 1 Wash. 587, 589-592, 21 Pac. 314 (1889). Reiterated in the opinions in many cases, for example: In re Sinlahekin Creek, 162 Wash. 635, 642-643, 299 Pac. 649(1931). 305Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 279-290, 49 Pac. 495 (1897). This likewise became an established principle: Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 544, 143 Pac. 104 (1914). "Riparian rights date from the first step taken to secure title from the government." In re Alpowa Creek, 129 Wash. 9, 13, 224 Pac. 29 (1924). 306In reDoan Creek, 125 Wash. 14, 20, 215 Pac. 343 (1923).

References: v. 
 v. 
 art. 7542
 § 4
 art. 7542
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v.