Court Opinion

ID: 9774708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:31:13.346123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:14.346007
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, dissenting. This is a case involving water rights. The trial court and the majority pass over rather lightly the fact that the appellees, who own over 1,000 acres of land next to this nonnavigable stream, depleted several large holes of water to irrigate some of it. Not all their land could be described as riparian. The appellant, a riparian owner across the creek, had the same rights to use those holes of water as the appellees and had the right to prevent their destruction. I would reverse the trial judge on this issue and award some damages to the appellant. The appellees did not own this water, although they acted as if they did. A riparian owner does not own the water flowing past his land. 1A G. W. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property § 261 (1980). Although the creek had ceased to flow because of a drouth, I see no change in their rights. They merely have the right to use it without damaging the rights of other owners. Seneca Consolidated Mines Co. v. Great Western Power Co., 209 Cal. 206, 287 P. 93 (1930). Neither party owned the fish in the stream. Medlock v. Galbreath, 208 Ark. 681, 187 S.W.2d 545 (1945). The fact that appellant may have wanted to use the holes to fish is enough to find he was deprived of that right however slight it may have been. A riparian owner does not abandon his rights merely because he doesn’t use them. Smith v. Morganton, 187 N.C. 801, 123 S.E. 88 (1924). A drouth is a severe problem to all farmers. But a few holes of water from a small creek are not going to save a large crop. The damage doe to this creek by completely drying up the holes may have been far worse than the short term gains by the farmer. In a broader sense, we have reached the time in our state when we have to start thinking seriously in terms of a scarcity of water and of the competing interests for our water which must be fairly reconciled. No longer can we assume there is an abundance of water there for everyone’s taking for any and all purposes. We now know that most of our water actually belongs to no one. Subterranean water constantly moves, small branches create nonnavigable streams, which, in turn, create navigable bodies of water. All are interrelated and affected by any damage to the other. The general assembly, an appropriate body to resolve these problems, has so far failed to deal with them in any definitive way. It would be better if they addressed the problem in a comprehensive way rather than if we settled all the conflicting interests in a case by case way.