WATER LAW
Robert Hirschfeld
and Sarah Painter
Table of Contents
Part I: Introduction to Surface Water Law
Part II: Riparian Rights
A. Overview
B. Coverage
C. Principal Elements
D. Administration
E. Links with other Laws
F. Citizen Involvement
G. Effects on Aquatic Natural Resources
H. Illustrative Judicial Rulings
I. Limitations and Effectiveness
J. Possibilities for Reform
Part II: Prior Appropriation
A. Overview
B. Coverage
C. Administration
D. Principal Elements
E. Links with other Laws
F. Citizen Involvement
G. Effects on Aquatic Natural Resources
H. Illustrative Judicial Rulings
I. Limitations and Effectiveness
J. Possibilities for Reform
References
Introduction to Water Law:
What is Water Law?
Water law is traditionally classified as a branch of
property law. It includes the legal rules explaining who
can use water, in what ways, and for how long. In many
settings, the use rights people possess are viewed as
forms of private property, but they are unusual forms of
property with features that reflect the public’s strong
interest in how water is used.
The defining characteristics of water make it a
challenging resource to manage. Water is a fugitive
resource with a myriad of uses, and it absolutely essential
for life process. It is expected to fulfill many human
needs, including drinking and household uses, raising
farm animals, irrigation, mining, power, manufacturing,
sewage, navigation, wildlife, recreation, aesthetic, and
environmental values.
Source: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tae/cpm/woodruff_dam_pic.jpg
Water Law
Water regimes differ by region, and diverge in important
ways from real and personal property law. Generally,
water law is a study of property concepts as they relate
to water, including:
–
–
–
–
Water allocation
Private and public access and use rights
Transfer and termination of water rights
Dispute resolution (between water users, uses, and
intergovernmental entities)
– Water institutions and governance
Development of Water Law

Developed from common law principles. (by courts)
Water law in the United States developed from common law
principles. This means that the law was developed by the
courts, or some similar tribunal, in response to water conflicts
or uncertainty, rather than through legislative or executive
action. Some water law concepts, such as riparian rights, were
inherited from Europe and modified by American water users
and courts. Other water systems arose from the unique needs
and experiences of Americans settling in the arid west.


Trend toward codification
Several states have now codified their water regimes into
state statutes, regulations, and registration or permit
requirements, and have appointed specific governmental
entities to manage the water allocation system. This means
that state legislatures or regulatory agencies have passed laws
defining common law concepts such as the requirements for
obtaining and limitations on using water rights. However, not
all states have codified their water law, and even states with
statutory grounding still may rely on common law standards
for resolving water conflicts and policy.

Source: original photo on file with author
Two Major Water Law Systems
Water law varies from state to states, and most states have separate
systems for governing surface water and groundwater. There are
two major U.S. systems for allocating surface water: Riparian
rights, in which owners of land abutting water courses have certain
rights to use the water, and Prior appropriation, in which water
rights are established based on first-in-time diversion for a
beneficial use. Generally, states in the Eastern United States where
water is more abundant follow Riparian rights schemes, and arid
Western states follow prior appropriation. However, several states
have modified or hybrid versions of the two main systems.
States with a Riparian Rights
Systems for Surface Water:
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
States with Prior Appropriation
Systems for Surface Water
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
Source: original photo on file with author
States with Hybrid systems for
Surface Water
California
Oklahoma
Kansas
Oregon
Mississippi South Dakota
Nebraska
Texas
North Dakota Washington
Source: original photo on file with author
When researching specific
water law issues:
This module contains only a summary of the major water law regimes, and how
current water law systems affects fisheries and other aquatic natural resources
conservation. When approaching a specific water law issue, it is important to
research the particular state law which governs the situation.
Most states have numerous statutory provisions which confer authority to use,
develop, and regulate water resources on various entities. For example, in Illinois,
which has not fully codified its water law into statute, there are still literally
dozens of statutory provisions that confer authority on state and local entities,
including the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Illinois Department
of Agriculture, numerous principalities, public water districts, water
commissions, public utilities, and sanitary districts, to use or otherwise affect
water resources. Therefore, state-specific research is important.
When is water law relevant to
conservation interests
1) Resolving conflicts between competing users.
Some water users, such as those with conservation, fish, and wildlife interests
may want to maintain certain levels of instream flows. Other current or
potential water users may want to divert water from the river or stream for
personal or commercial use. Water law can determine which party should
prevail when conflicts arise.
2) Resolving questions about ownership and use rights
– Including claims of ownership by riparian owners, states, and the federal
government
– Questions about the rights of riparian owners and the rights of the public
– Questions about a state’s ability to protect the rights of the public
Effects of Water Law and
Diversions on Aquatic
Natural Resources
Water law is largely about diverting water for
human consumption, making it difficult to protect
aquatic natural resources.
Water Law and Diversions v.
Fisheries Conservation:
The Conflicts
Several different groups compete for use and access to limited
water supplies.
- Agriculture
- Cities, especially growing communities
- Industry
- Native American tribes
- Recreation/aesthetics
- Fish, wildlife, and other environmental concerns
Each of these groups have different interests in how water should
be allocated and used. Water laws must attempt to balance the
competing interests, and more often than not, fisheries and aquatic
resources are at the bottom of the list.
Water Law and Diversions v.
Fisheries Conservation:
Problems for Fish
As water is diverted and used, there are significant changes to the natural state of
watercourses.
– Withdrawals, dams, irrigation ditches, and land use patterns reduce instream flows, meaning
there is less spawning habitat for fish.
– Dams block access to habitat and spawning areas.
– Lower water levels change the water temperature and flow speed which can affect fish health
and survival rate. If water levels in a reservoir are particularly low, the water can be heated by
the sun to the point where eggs and young fish are killed.
– Some dams/diversions pump water from a river into smaller agricultural canals. Fish can be
sucked into the pumps and killed. Fish ladders and fish screens which are intended to help
fish navigate around dams and prevent fish from entering diversions may not be used or may
offer inadequate protection
– Sometimes fish swim into irrigation ditches during high flow times, and are unable to swim
back out either because the ditch has dried up, or a fish screen is in place.
– As water is returned to the waterway from agricultural uses, its temperature or chemical
properties may be altered.
Water Law and Diversions v. Fish
fish ladder
Drying irrigation
ditch
Fish screens on a dam
Sources http://www.lakeoroville.water.ca.gov/about/stats/hatchery.cfm; www.historyforkids.org/.../maliirrigation.gif; www.fpi-co.com/images/applications-RiverDiver
Two Major Water Law Systems
With this background
information about water
law and diversions in mind,
we will now consider the
two major surface water
law systems:
Riparian rights
and
Prior Appropriation.
Source: original on file with author.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Riparian Rights: Overview
General Rule:
Each landowner that borders on or is crossed by a water body
may make reasonable use of the water on their riparian
property within the particular watershed.
Riparian rights are incidental to ownership of land bordering on
water and pass with the transfer of property (even when not designated
in a deed). Because the right attaches to the riparian land, riparian
owners traditionally are not allowed to transfer the right to another place.
For the same reason, riparian landowners do not lose their water rights
through nonuse. Today, some state statutes now allow transfers of
riparian rights to tracts off the watercourse, as long as the use is
reasonable.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Coverage
States with Riparian Rights Systems
Alabama
Minnesota
Arkansas Missouri
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Delaware New Jersey
Florida
New York
Georgia
North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Rhode Island
Kentucky South Carolina
Maine
Tennessee
Maryland Vermont
Massachusetts
Virginia
Michigan West Virginia
Wisconsin
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Principal Elements of a Riparian
Rights System
Who are riparian landowners?
– Land must be contiguous (touching) the
water source
– The watercourse can be a stream or river in a
definite and natural channel, lakes, ponds,
and sometimes springs. Riparian rights
normally do not arise out of artificial
watercourses or diffuse surface water.
(Diffuse surface water is water that has fallen
to the earth, such as stormwater, but has not
yet collected in channels).
Source: original photo on file with author.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Nature of Riparian Rights
 Riparian landowners do not actually own the water body, nor do
they own the water itself until they have lawfully diverted it.
Instead, they “own” numerous rights to make use of the water.
Modern riparian rights include:
- right to waterway access
- right to divert and use water (in times of shortage, water is
shared by riparians, not allotted to a senior appropriator)
- right to water purity (though this is now largely controlled by
statute)
- right to fish
- right to protect the stream/river banks and riparian tract from
erosion
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Doctrine of Reasonable Use
Riparian doctrine: Each landowner bordering on a water body may make reasonable use of the water on
their riparian property within the particular watershed.
• Reasonable use is a limit on each riparian landowner’s right to the common supply.
• Reasonableness is relative. It is most often determined by comparing one riparian’s water use with the
interests and uses of other riparians.
– This means that in determining the reasonableness of a particular water use, the use is not weighed
against the possible environmental damage that the use may cause. Instead, it is compared to how
other riparians are using water, and whether the particular use will impair the rights of other users.
• Common law principles distinguish between natural and artificial uses.
Diversions for natural uses, that is, domestic consumption, limited livestock watering, and subsistence
gardening are nearly always reasonable, even if they diminish flows to the harm of downstream riparians.
This is based on the assumption that natural uses seldom significantly diminish flows and are necessary for
basic survival; hence they are inherently reasonable.
All other uses are artificial uses. They include large-scale irrigation, manufacturing, hydropower
generation, and mining. They are permissible only to the extent they are reasonable under the circumstances.
Determining reasonableness requires scrutiny of their potential impact on downstream users.
• State statutes may create a hierarchy of uses that affect a reasonable use inquiry, or a statute may flatly
declare a use reasonable. For example, Iowa ranks “human drinking water” as the highest priority in times
of water shortage, with “agricultural uses” second most important.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reasonable Use Continued
When conflicts arise between two riparians and a court or administrative body determines
whether a particular riparian’s use is reasonable, common factors that are considered
include:
- purpose of the use
- suitability of use to the watercourse
- compatibility of use to other uses on the watercourse
- economic value of the use
- social value of the use
- extent and amount of harm to other riparians
- practicality of avoiding harm
*Note that under the reasonable use rule, a riparian owner whose use is not adversely
affected by a reduction in streamflow or water quality has no basis for a legal action. This
means that unless there is a riparian owner who specifically uses the water for fishing or for
something else that requires a minimum instream flow or water quality level, no one can bring a
lawsuit relying on water rights to protect fish. Even if there was a riparian owner to bring
such a lawsuit, the court would evaluate the challenged use based on the above factors and
could possibly conclude that protecting fish is not economically beneficial or compatible
with existing uses.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Reasonable Use Continued:
Diversion and Place of Use Limits
Traditionally, there were two major limitations on riparian owners: natural flow theory and
place of use restrictions.
a) Natural Flow Doctrine: Early riparian rights were restricted to uses that would not
diminish the natural flow of the waterway. This basically limited water withdrawals to use for domestic
purposes such as drinking water. Although this rule provided better protection for fish and other
aquatic natural resources because it maintained instream flows, the natural flow limitation interfered
with community growth and industrialization. It was gradually replaced by the reasonable use doctrine.
See, e.g., Stratton v. Mt. Hermon Boys’ School, 216 Mass. 83 (Mass. 1913).
b) Place of Use restrictions: Several states which follow riparian rights water law impose
place of use restrictions which prohibit riparian owners from using water off of the riparian tract or
outside of the watershed. One theory behind these restrictions is that if the water is used within the
watershed, it may eventually return to the waterway. Today, most states allow riparians to use water off
the riparian land, or to transfer the water rights to a non-riparian user, subject to the reasonable use
requirement. In other words, as long as the water use does not impair the reasonable use of other
riparians, the use is valid. See, e.g., Pyle v. Gilbert, 245 Ga. 403 (Ga. 1980).
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Administration of Riparian
Rights System
Because water law systems vary between states, each state has different entities
which may affect water law administration. Within riparian states, several tools are
used to administer water law including common law principles, registration and
permitting schemes, and enforcement systems. States rely on these tools to varying
degrees.
Some states, including Louisiana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island,
and West Virginia, continue to reply primarily on common law principles and have
not enacted significant registration or permitting requirements.
Other states, including Iowa, Maryland, Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Virginia, Kentucky, Connecticut and Delaware, have significant regulatory
permitting requirements with relatively low thresholds. In such states,
administrative agencies play a much greater role in administration of water law.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
a) Common law principles:
• utilized in conflict resolution and policy making.
Include:
– Reasonable use doctrine; Natural v. artificial uses
– Diversion and place of use limitations
– Determinations of whether a specific waterbody gives rise to riparian rights (resolution of debates over ownership and boundaries)/
b) Registration:
• used to monitor water use.
• May be used statewide for all water withdrawals, or may be limited to certain types. (ex: in Illinois and Ohio, only groundwater withdrawals are
registered).
c) Permitting:
used to control water use by attaching conditions and ensuring that proposed uses do not interfere with existing users
• May supplant a state’s registration system (because water withdrawals are monitored through the permit process), or may apply to only certain
parts of the state. (ex: in Illinois, permits are required for significant new withdrawals from Lake Michigan, but in other parts of the state,
registration is all that is required, and only for groundwater withdrawals that exceed 100,000 GDP).
• May apply to groundwater, surface waters, or both.
• May apply to withdrawals (actual use) or facilities (capacity for use).
• May be of limited duration.
• May be tied to location or use.
• Permitting requirements may only be triggered at certain volumetric thresholds.
• May be linked to other regulatory processes (such as land-use and site development regulations).
• Some permits have requirements to protect instream flows.
• May prioritize uses.
• May target specific areas for extra protection and withdrawal limitations.
d) Enforcement:
Enforcement schemes may or may not be effective. Even where permitting or registration systems do exist, enforcement may be largely
voluntary because states do not have resources or political support to implement permitting or enforce permits to the extent implied by the law.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Major Players in Water Law
Administration:
The extent of any of the following entities’ involvement in water law administration will
depend on the system established in a particular state. However, in most systems, each of
the following individuals or entities plays some role in administration.
a) State agencies: often responsible for registration or permitting programs, may have enforcement
responsibilities. Agencies administer permits pursuant to legislative guidance, but may have authority
to set standards and procedures for registration, permitting, and conflict resolutions.
Ex: State Department of Natural Resources, State Water Control Boards, State Watermasters, Water
management districts
b) Riparian landowners: involved in administration because a state may rely on voluntary
compliance/enforcement; conflicts may have to be resolved between individual users in a court or
other administrative tribunal
c) Courts: apply common law standards, formulate policies
d) State Legislatures: codify water law systems, especially important as states move away from
common law doctrines
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with
other Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Relationship of Riparian Rights to other Laws: Regulatory
Overlap and Federal Limitations
Several state and federal statutes affect water rights.
1) The Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act, for example, provide for increasing water quality and treatment
standards for surface and groundwater sources and wastewater discharges.
- Riparian owners are obligated to comply with CWA standards when utilizing their riparian rights. When a riparian owner
challenges another riparian’s water use as unreasonable, it may be easier to prove unreasonableness if the CWA is being violated.
2) Remediation efforts affecting water supplies are reflected in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Recovery Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
3) Species and habitat protections are contained in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the
Endangered Species Act and others.
- Riparians must comply with ESA and NEPA if a water use triggers the requirements of these statutes.
These federal statutes highlight and exacerbate the deficiencies of common law riparianism. Environmental
concerns are not a key element of the riparian water law doctrine. Water law developed simply for the purpose of
allocating water for human use. Many federal environmental statutes increase the costs of securing and using water
resources, increase conflicts between competing reasonable uses, and otherwise affect available supplies. Frequently,
the agencies responsible for implementing these federal statutes do not coordinate with the agencies who manage
state water rights. Until riparian rights systems incorporate similar environmental goals, conflicts will continue to
arise.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Citizen Involvement and Remedies
In riparian jurisdictions, riparian rights can only be asserted by riparian
landowners. Even in states that require riparian owners to maintain instream
flows, it is not clear that groups most interested in instream flows, such as
environmental groups and recreationists, would have standing to sue in state
courts to protect their interests. (“Standing” is the requirement that parties
demonstrate to the court that they have a sufficient connection to and harm from
the challenged law or action that justifies their participation in the case. To
establish standing, parties must usually show 1) that they have or will imminently
suffer injury from the challenged law or action, 2) that there is a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and 3) that a
favorable court decision will redress the injury.)
In addition, the risk and cost of water rights litigation deter many potential
plaintiffs even where standing would not be a barrier. However, there are some
situations in which members of the public can be involved in water law and
diversion issues.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Opportunities for Public Participation
a) Direct intervention in lawsuits: Appropriate state agencies or conservation groups in some cases attempt to
become a party in certain riparian water disputes on the basis of ownership of riparian land (such as a state park or
recreational area) adversely affected by low flows or pollution. Groups such as Nature Conservancy have utilized
direct intervention as land owners.
Conservation groups can also request to intervene at the court’s discretion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24 or the state equivalent. If the court grants a group’s intervention request, the group becomes a fullfledged party to the litigation, subject to limitations placed by the court. - Drawbacks and limitations on
direct intervention: risk, cost, standing
b) Amicus Briefs: where direct intervention as a party is not possible, citizens may be able to file amicus curiae briefs
to bring fisheries and other public interest considerations before a court deciding a case involving a conflict between
water users. The decision whether to admit information submitted amicus curiae lies with the discretion of the
court.
Drawbacks: not actually a party to the lawsuit, varying degrees of influence and effectiveness
c) Nuisance law: Sometimes, public citizens suffer a special injury and can satisfy the standing requirements to bring
a public nuisance suit against a riparian owner who is causing harm to aquatic natural resources. For example, a
commercial fisherman who relies on a particular waterway to maintain his living would have standing to sue under
public nuisance. See, e.g., Burgess v. M/V Tamano, 370 F. Supp. 247, 250-51 (D. Me. 1973); Columbia Rivers
Fishermen’s Protection Union v. City of St. Helens, 87 P.2d 195, 197 (1939).
d) Public Use: the public has a right of navigation and fishing in all navigable waters. See, e.g., Public use rights may
be asserted under the Public Trust doctrine.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Public Trust Doctrine
When states entered the Union and took ownership of land beneath
their navigable waterways, they took title subject to public use rights of
fishing and navigation. As lands were transferred to riparian owners, the
riparian owners also took title subject to public use rights. It has been
argued that the public is entitled to sufficient streamflow to preserve the
public right to navigate and fish in all navigable waters, and that that state
has a duty to protect and manage water courses for these public purposes.
It is unclear whether the public trust doctrine protects only rights to
commercial navigation and fishing, or whether it also encompasses
recreational, aesthetic, and environmental values. It is also unclear
whether the public trust doctrine imposes an affirmative duty on states to
protect public use rights.
Source: original photo on file with author
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Effect of Riparian Law on
Aquatic Natural Resources
The Problems:
Protecting fisheries and other aquatic natural resources is not a key component
of riparian doctrine. Riparian rights exist to allow for diversion of water for
human use and consumption.
As water is diverted and used, there are significant changes to the natural state of
watercourses. The most serious consequence of diversions to fish is the decrease
in instream flows, which changes the water temperature, flow speed, and
chemical properties of the water. Dams and other diversions also alter wildlife
habitat and fish spawning areas. Irrigation ditches can be especially harmful
because fish swim sometimes swim into irrigation ditches during high flow times,
and are unable to swim back out.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Applying Riparian Law to Fish Conservation
Working within existing riparian principles, there are limited methods for addressing environmental concerns.
1) Institutional mechanisms addressing environmental concerns
In riparian jurisdictions, environmental concerns are largely addressed in two main forms:
a) measures incorporated into state water law that integrate instream water uses into the process for allocating water among
competing uses (only in states with standardized registration or permitting systems)
-- Ex: restricting permits in areas ecologically sensitive areas, requiring threshold instream flows, placing fisheries and wildlife protection
near the top of a hierarchy of reasonable uses
b) direct regulatory measures that supplement riparian principles by restricting water development
activities.
-- Ex: Federal and state environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act which place affirmative duties on
riparian users
2) Ability of riparian landowners to address environmental concerns
a) Water must be shared among all riparian users.
The riparian doctrine requires that the available water supply be shared among riparian owners along the course of a
stream. This requirement provides some protection for instream values and aquatic natural because it ensures that no user can
totally deplete the flow of a stream.
b) Limitations on transfers out of watershed.
The riparian doctrine’s restriction to interbasin transfers also provides protection to instream uses by limiting
withdrawals. However, the fact that the doctrine is not likely to prohibit transfers where water is available in excess of the
needs of the riparian landowners diminishes the significance of this protection.
c) Riparian rights to fish and access clean water.
Riparian landowners can sue if another riparian’s use is causing pollution or obstruction of flow that is interfering with
their own riparian rights, including the right to fish. However, such complaints are analyzed by applying the vague reasonable
use doctrine. Furthermore, if there are no riparian landowners with interests in instream activities, significant harm may occur
to instream values without attention from the courts. Even where lawsuits are initiated, attention may be focused on
competing offstream water needs with little attention given to instream uses.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Illustrative Judicial Rulings
Springer v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 510 F.2d 468 (C.A.N.C. 1975).
Riparian landowners sued an upstream brewery for pollution that “caused six unprecedented fish kills and otherwise
impaired the quality” of the waterway. In this case, the court recognized that riparian owners have the right to “scenic use
and enjoyment” of the river. In states that recognize a similar riparian right, riparians who are not actually fishers, but
instead watch and enjoy wildlife, can have protections against pollution and diversions which interfere with wildlife in the
waterways. As the North Carolina court explained:
“[A] riparian landowner has a right to the agricultural, recreational, and scenic use and enjoyment of the stream
bordering his land, subject, however, to the rights of upstream riparian owners to make reasonable use
of the water
without excessively diminishing its quality. Though he does not own the fish in the stream, the
riparian owner's rights
include the opportunity to catch them. Interference with riparian rights is an actionable
tort, and a riparian owner may
join several polluters as joint tort-feasors.
Michigan Citizen’s for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters North America, 479 Mich. 280 (Mich. 2007).
A Water Conservation Organization and its member property owners brought an action against a spring water
bottling company for an injunction against pumping groundwater. The plaintiffs alleged that by pumping groundwater, the
bottling company was interfering with riparian rights of fishing, recreation, and wildlife viewing. The court of appeals
entered the injunction, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the organization and members lacked
standing.
State v. Haskell, 84 Vt. 429 (Vt. 1911).
This case explains that a riparian landowner “cannot lawfully kill, materially injury, or obstruct the free passage” those
fish which he does not lawfully catch. Further, riparians do not have the right to unreasonably pollute or degrade the
waterway because every riparian shares a common right to use and enjoy the water. Use and enjoyment includes the “right
to have fish inhabit and spawn in the stream, for which purpose they must have a common passageway to and from their
spawning and feeding grounds.”
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations/
Effectiveness
Reform
Effectiveness and Limitations of Riparian Rights
The riparian system is fairly effective is fulfilling its purpose of allocating access and use rights in waters. However, the
needs and priorities of the nation have changed in the many years which have passed since the riparian rights system was
first established in early America. Today, there is a keen interest in protecting aquatic natural resources, but the riparian
rights system has failed to incorporate conservation and ecosystem values.
Major Deficiencies in the Riparian Rights System:
1) Failure to protect instream flows.
Cumulative affects of several "reasonable uses" on one watercourse can result in reduced stream flows, deterioration of water quality, and the
inability to protect ecosystems and wildlife habitats or recreation uses.
2) Vagueness of the reasonable use standard.
The reasonable use standards provide little certainty regarding the nature and extent of water rights. It is often difficult to define with a
fair degree of certainty the existing water supplies and uses, because whether a water use is reasonable is always relative to the other existing
uses on a waterway. This uncertainty makes it difficult to manage water resources in times of scarcity, or to manage water for purposes such as
conservation. The uncertainty also means that existing and proposed reasonable uses are not fully protected, which impedes planning,
investment, and economic development that requires assured water supplies.
Finally, the reasonable use standard makes it difficult to bring legal action for protection of stream flows, because a riparian can only bring an
action if his own use is being impaired by another riparian’s use of the watercourse.
3) Reliance on common law litigation to resolve conflicts. (especially where only riparian owners have standing)
Under the riparian doctrine, consideration of instream water quality and quantity issues may depend on the fortuitous location of a
particular riparian landowner interested in maintaining instream uses. If there are conflicts between riparian landowners, or if a public right is
asserted, such disputes often are resolved by courts which can reach inconsistent or contradictory results. Evidentiary presentations are
controlled primarily by the litigants and fact specific situations, and there may be little or no consideration of broader public policy or
conservation issues.
4) Failure to recognize the hydrologic interrelationship between groundwater and surface water.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Possibilities for Reform
“Water, taken in
moderation, cannot hurt
anybody.”
Mark Twain
(1835-1910)
Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photograph’s Division
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Possibilities for Reform of Riparian Rights
1) Comprehensive, natural resource based long-term planning on a larger scale.
State legislatures and agencies need to move away from the idea that consumption is the highest
priority for water resources to the concept that maintaining natural balance is important for securing longterm interests of the state and effectively using water resources.
2) Increased focus on protecting instream flows
State agencies need mechanisms to stop diversions when necessary for conservation. Some states now
include protection of instream flows as part of their regulatory system. For example, Minnesota requires
cessation of downstream withdrawals if instream flows are impaired, threatening fish, wildlife, or drinking
supplies. Other states have not incorporated minimum flows into water management, or have only granted
limited authority to research or study the impacts of instream flows on human consumption and future
human needs.
3) Greater opportunities for public participation.
Standing should be expanded for parties with an interest in instream flow protection.
4) Coordinate regulation of water quality and quantity
In many states, including Illinois, the authorities regulating water quality are different than those
managing water quantity. Both aspects of water management are important for protecting aquatic
ecosystems.
5) Trend toward statutory codification and permitting systems
In response to perceived deficiencies, several riparian states have moved to, or considering moving to
comprehensive permitting systems. However, comprehensive permitting also has limitations including
overregulation, expense, inefficiency, and entrenchment of environmentally harmful uses.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Prior Appropriation
Overview
• Prior appropriation is the body of water law that governs the allocation of water
resources in the western United States. The doctrine of prior appropriation was
developed during the westward expansion of the 19th century to meet the needs
of water users.
• Water in the western United States is scarcer and less dependable than in the east,
so the riparian rights system was not as practical.
• Early application of prior appropriation was first by miners on public lands and
later by farmers who claimed exclusive rights to water taken as necessary for their
mining and farming operations.
• In light of long-standing policies that economic development requires full
utilization of a natural resource, rights to water have historically been given to
those who took the water from its source and applied it to a beneficial use.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Prior Appropriation
Overview
Prior Appropriation was designed to encourage diversion of water from
its source for application to agriculture in the arid west. By requiring that the
water be put to use, hording was to be discouraged. Due to its scarcity in the
west, water has been and remains a highly valuable resource. Exclusive
control over such a precious resource, without a use requirement, would give
an inordinate amount of power to those that horded it. Thus, lawmakers tied
a water user’s right to a specified amount of water directly to the actual use of
the water.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Prior Appropriation
“ I tell you gentlemen, you are
piling up a heritage of conflict
and litigation over water
rights for there is not
sufficient water to supply the
land.”
John Wesley Powell
1834-1902
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Prior Appropriation
• The basic functioning of the prior appropriation system is very simple – first
in time, first in right.
• Water is generally considered to be a public resource unowned by any
individual or entity. The owner of the property right has a right in the use of
water once it has been diverted and applied to a beneficial use. Water, as a
resource, is separated from land ownership, unlike under the riparian rights
system.
• The date of the appropriation determines a water user’s priority within the
system. Prior appropriation recognizes superior rights in anyone who put
water to use anywhere over anyone who later began using water. If water is
insufficient to meet all needs, early appropriators are allotted their water first,
with later appropriators receiving only some or even none of the water to
which they have rights.
• Once a party puts water to a beneficial use and complies with any statutory
requirements, the water right is perfected and remains valid so long as it
continues to be used.
• This water right is transferable, with certain limitations.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Prior Appropriation Coverage
•
Prior appropriation, as a state property law, applies only in those states
following the system.
•
States following prior appropriation:
– AK, AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY
•
Some states use a hybrid riparian/prior appropriation system. Those states
include:
– CA, KS, MS, NE, ND, OK, OR, SD, TX, WA
•
Equitable Apportionment Doctrine
– The Supreme Court of the United States has developed the “Equitable
Apportionment Doctrine” to deal with interstate allocation disputes, the purpose
of which is to ensure that water is apportioned equitably among the states.
– The Supreme court has, on occasion, deviated from adherence to strict priority in
allocations when necessary to achieve equity between states.
Source: http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/wetland/canal/canals.htm
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Administration of Prior
Appropriation
• Permitting
– Nearly all states now require a permit for new
appropriations.
– These permits are generally codifications of the
traditional requirements for a water appropriation,
providing a means for the state to keep track of its water
resources.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/agroblogger/2387606164/
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Administration Continued
Transfers
– A water right can be transferred, under certain conditions, to another user
or another use.
– In order to transfer the use right, there must be a showing that the
transfer will not harm the vested use rights of any junior users.
• Junior appropriators have a vested right to have the conditions of the river
remain as they were when their appropriations were made. Such rights make
it very difficult for senior users to change the nature of their use.
– This “no harm” rule is strictly interpreted.
• Such a strict reading is part of a general policy for protecting junior
users from interference with their water rights.
• This strict interpretation practically results in the limited
transferability of water rights, especially those transfers that seek to
put the water to a new use.
– The mere prospect of legal challenges by potentially-affected users can
impair the transferability of water rights.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Administration Continued
• Transfers & Changes in Nature/Place of Water Use
– Simple transfers between users of a water right,
without change to the nature or place of the water
use are common and not problematic because they
pose no threat to junior users
– It is much more difficult to change the nature or
place of use, whether by the original or a new user.
Such changes are likely to affect the water rights of
junior users
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Administration Continued
• Difficulty in shutting down wasteful water uses
– When water rights are first perfected, the appropriator has broad freedom to tailor
that right, with very few restrictions. Most uses are considered beneficial, and few
deemed wasteful.
– But once use begins, the water right becomes narrowly tailored to the particular
specifications set at the time of appropriation. A narrowly tailored water right is
difficult to change or transfer without affecting another user in this highly
interlocked system.
– Because it is difficult to transfer water rights, many current wasteful water uses
continue. Even if the net effect of a transfer would be positive in terms of
overall efficiency of water use, the transfer is not allowed if it harms a single
junior user.
– Prior appropriation is structured to protect past uses, often regardless of their
inefficiency and detrimental effects on landscapes and fish and wildlife.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Preferences
– Many states have statutes that express preferences for certain water uses.
These are public policy concerns, which can include conservation.
– Preference laws primarily apply to new applicants, giving preference to
particular uses among those permit applications simultaneously filed.
– In times of shortage, preferred uses could potentially take priority over
non-preferred senior uses.
• In practice, however, preference statutes are not interpreted to allow such an
application of the law as would disrupt the vested priority of uses.
• Disruption of the priority system would undermine the foundational
purposes and functioning of the law of prior appropriation.
• Disruption of the priority system could also amount to a “taking” of the
property right in the water, requiring compensation to be paid to those senior
users whose water was given to junior users..
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Elements of a Valid
Appropriation
To appropriate, water must be diverted with an intent to appropriate it
for a beneficial use
• Traditional Elements/Requirements
– Intent to apply water to a beneficial use
– Actual diversion of water from a natural source
– Application of water to a beneficial use within a reasonable time
• Many states now require a permit from an administrative agency in
order to newly appropriate an amount of water.
– These state procedures assure compliance with the common law rules
(traditional elements/requirements) for establishing the water use right.
– Public interest concerns such as conservation may be weighed during the
permitting process.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Diversion
To appropriate, water must be diverted with intent to apply it to a
beneficial use
• Diversion, generally, is an alteration of part or all of a stream’s
flow away from its natural course.
– Historically, diversion has meant an actual physical diversion of the water
such as damming or channeling. Such a requirement is problematic for
claiming a water right for the purpose of maintaining the instream flows
necessary for fish and wildlife habitat.
– Some states have begun to recognize the need to maintain minimum
instream flows, and have carved exceptions to the physical diversion
requirement – see the next slide.
• Due Diligence
– A would-be appropriator must finish construction, divert, and apply water
within a certain amount of time, depending on state law, and individual
circumstances.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Diversion
To appropriate, water must be diverted with intent to apply it to a
beneficial use
• Some states no longer require actual, physical diversion from the
stream in order to establish a new water use right.
– Some states have recognized the need to maintain minimum instream
flows for various reasons including energy, aesthetics, recreation, and
conservation of fish and wildlife habitat.
– States may thus recognize an instream right to water, which requires that a
specific amount of water be allowed to flow through the stream at
particular places.
– In many such states, instream flows can only be appropriated by the state
or a state agency, though the state may act at the request of a private party
or other entity.
– Relaxing the requirements for what constitutes “diversion” for the
purpose of appropriating a water right is one of the major areas where
reform of the prior appropriation system is possible and necessary if fish
habitat is to be protected.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Beneficial Use
To appropriate, water must be diverted with intent to apply it to a
beneficial use.
•
•
•
•
•
Traditionally, “beneficial use” meant offstream consumptive use.
Historically, instream uses were deemed inherently wasteful as the purpose of the prior appropriation system
was to foster economic development through actual agricultural, industrial, or municipal use. Since there is no
duty to abate use or share with other appropriators during a time of drought, this consumptive, offstream
interpretation of “beneficial use” has often resulted in streams being pumped dry or very low, severely
degrading fish habitat.
Water may be appropriated for any use that the state deems beneficial. More economically or socially useful
purposes are generally not preferred over less useful purposes in regards to meeting the “beneficial”
requirement and maintaining the water right.
Beneficial Use is now specifically defined in most state statutes. All prior appropriation states consider
domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial uses to be beneficial uses. Some states have more recently
accepted recreation, aesthetics, and conservation as beneficial uses.
State statutes can setup a hierarchy of preferred uses, as discussed in the Administration section above. These
preferences are used administratively to determine the allocation of new permits for water rights. Preferences
are sometimes used to allow holders of rights for preferred uses to condemn less preferred uses for
compensation.
–
e.g. During a time of drought, a municipality may be able to condemn an agricultural water use right in order to provide
water to the populace. Compensation would have to be given to the farmer whose use was condemned.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Beneficial Use Continued
•
The right to use water does not include the right to waste it. In practice, this provision
often lacks real force as few uses are actually considered wasteful. Much of the
irrigation in the western United States is grossly inefficient in terms of economy and
ecology, and yet it is the single largest water use and remains the gold standard for the
concept of “beneficial use.”
•
Is “beneficial use” an evolving concept?
– In determining what “beneficial use” is, lawmakers may look to what was beneficial at the
time the water was first appropriated, or they may judge the usage under more contemporary
constructions or interpretations of this concept.
– In order for the “no waste” provision to have any teeth, beneficial use must be considered an
evolving concept. This could put an end to water practices that have become wasteful, either
trough changed natural conditions, or through increased knowledge of the hydrological
system.
– An evolving concept of beneficial use could also allow for instream, non-consumptive
appropriations and uses of water under the law. Since the single greatest threat to fish
populations in western states is lowered water level due to diversions, there must be some
way to end wasteful diversions and keep water in the watercourses if the fish are to survive.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Beneficial Use Continued
•
Once water is put to a beneficial use, the water right is perfected
– Senior use rights can defeat more socially important, efficient, or economically valuable
junior use rights. This often results in the problem of climatically unsuitable senior
agricultural uses in arid regions taking precedence over junior municipal or domestic use.
– Statutes can setup a hierarchy of preferred uses. These preferences are generally
administratively to determine priority of simultaneously filed applications for water permits.
These preferences could also be used to allow preferred junior users, such as municipalities,
to condemn less beneficial senior uses.
– As detailed above, under modern interpretations of beneficial use, the right to use water
does not include the right to waste by excessive applications. However, irrigation of
climatically inappropriate crops does not generally fall within this definition of waste
•
The property where water is applied need not be adjacent to the water source, and
usually does not even need to be within the source’s watershed. The purpose and
functioning of prior appropriation law was to take water from scattered and limited
sources and apply it to beneficial uses wherever they may be.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reasonable time, Using
Reasonable Diligence
• The extent of the appropriative right is a quantity of
water that can be put to beneficial use within a
reasonable time, using reasonable diligence.
• While reasonable is a vague and pliable term, the result
is that the incentives are placed to divert water quickly
in order to perfect the right, and not to allow water to
remain in the stream.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Loss of Right:
“Use it or lose it”
• Long term failure to use the appropriated right can result in the loss of that
right.
– i.e. failing to use the amount of appropriated water for the purpose for which it
was appropriated.
• Intentional disuse may be construed as abandonment with the amount of
water abandoned reentering the river system and available for new
appropriation.
• Unintentional disuse results in forfeiture in some states.
• The incentives are for full and sustained consumptive use of water, depriving
river systems of instream flows and damaging fish habitat. Even in times of
heavy rainfall where the full amount of water appropriated is not necessary to
meet the needs that it was originally appropriated for, the right holder may
need to continue to withdraw their full amount in order not to lose it.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with
other Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Interaction with Other Laws
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
– The purpose of the Act is to preserve in a free-flowing
condition certain rivers possessing outstanding “scenic,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural,
and other similar values…”
– The effect is to protect instream flows by prohibiting
projects that would affect flow.
– The Act is prospective, blocking future projects, and does
not have force over prior appropriators.
• Removing water from the appropriation system to maintain
instream flows would be a taking of the senior appropriator’s
private property right. Such rights must be purchased and would
be quite expensive.
Source: original photo on file with author
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with
other Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Federal Reserve
Water Rights Doctrine
•
•
•
When the United States sets aside lands for special use such as a park, military base,
national forest, or Indian Reservation, it also reserves an amount of water sufficient to
fulfill the purposes of that reservation.
Priority is determined as of the date of the reservation, with the right vesting in the
government, whether or not the water has ever been used since that date.
Since the government can claim a superior right to water that it may not have
historically used, but currently needs, this doctrine can cause rights dislocation among
those who appropriated after the date of the reservation.
– Thus, courts have narrowly construed the extent and scope of federal reserved rights. In
United States v. New Mexico, the US Supreme Court rejected the claim that Congress
intended to reserve minimum instream flows for aesthetic, recreational, and wildlifepreservation purposes (for the particular National Forest in question) despite strong
evidence to the contrary.
– Federally reserved rights are also quantified in state courts, and the states may have a strong
interest in minimizing the amount of water reserved to the federal government.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Citizen Involvement
• Citizens are primarily involved with western water law as appropriators or
would-be appropriators. Citizens can, of course, always become politically
involved at the level of the state legislature, putting pressure on lawmakers
and seeking change to prior appropriation laws. Certain changes necessary
for protecting fish habitat, such as redefining beneficial use to include
instream use and to exclude wasteful agricultural practices, are incumbent
upon the political will of the people of a state. In states where instream
appropriations are allowed, citizens can get together to appropriate (or lease
from an appropriator) an amount of water for instream use, or put pressure
on the state government to do so.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Effects on Aquatic Resources
• The law of prior encouraged almost two centuries of diversions
from watercourses.
• These diversions have dramatically altered the habitat of the fish
and wildlife living in and around these watercourses, principally
by lowering the amount of water.
Landscape-scale problems with water use in the West
• Too much water is wasted for ill-conceived purposes and
through inefficient methods of delivery.
• Too much water is used for irrigation of crops not suited for
western growth.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
In re Adjudication of the Existing Rights to
the Use of All the Water
– This case before the Montana Supreme Court details the common law
elements of prior appropriation water law as well as evidencing how this
law can be changed to maintain instream flows for the benefit of fish and
wildlife.
– This opinion overrules a previous case, holding that “beneficial use” for
the purpose of a valid water appropriation claim can include uses for fish,
wildlife, and recreation, and that non-diversionary uses for these purposes
are valid under the law..
Source: original photos on file with author.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations/
Effectiveness
Effectiveness and Limitations of
Prior Appropriation
• The prior appropriation system is very effective at what it purports to
do, moving water out of streams and applying it to consumptive use.
It is not effective at keeping instream the water necessary for
maintaining the health and integrity of watercourse ecosystems. In
order to do so, reform will be necessary.
• The emphasis on protecting the vested rights of junior users results in
great difficulty in transferring use rights to more valuable or efficient
uses.
• “Beneficial use” and “waste” are largely meaningless concepts,
especially in the context of irrigation for agriculture. However, simply
by their existence in the law, the framework is in place for more strictly
regulating the efficiency and true beneficence of water uses.
Redefinition and reinterpretation is necessary.
• So long as the primary purpose of western water law is to protect prior
users at all costs and regardless of the nature of use, thee law will
remain part of the problem to fisheries.
Reform
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Possibilities for Reform of
Prior Appropriation
• Give real meaning to the “beneficial use” requirement
– This would serve to eliminate many currently allowed, but highly wasteful water
practices in the west. The vast majority of water in the west is used to irrigate
crops. Many of these crops are not suited for growth in that particular climate. If
there was also an expended conception of the meaning of waste under the law, so
that it included inefficient irrigation practices, enough water could be freed up to
provide for population centers as well as to remain in watercourses.
– Maintenance of instream flows could also be construed as a beneficial use, and
not as waste. There is a wealth of reasons why maintaining minimum flows is
beneficial, conservation of fisheries not least among them. The law needs to
recognize this.
• Allow for private condemnation for preferred uses.
– If the state creates a hierarchy for preferred uses based on the public interest,
water rights could be more easily transferred and moved to better and more
efficient uses when parties are willing to pay for those rights.
Overview
Coverage
Administration
Principal
Elements
Links with other
Laws
Citizen
Involvement
Effects on
Aquatic
Resources
Illustrative
Rulings
Limitations
Effectiveness
Reform
Protecting Minimum Flows
under Prior Appropriation
• Some states and state agencies have set up regulations requiring minimum
instream flows. There are two possible methods for this.
– 1. Removing a certain amount water from the appropriation system
• Under the current law, this would upset the strict priority system, and would bring
takings challenges by water users whose rights were interrupted or taken away. If the
state decided to pay rights holders for removing this amount of water from the
appropriation system, the cost would be enormous.
– 2. Newly appropriating water for instream flows
• This can only be done if diversion is not actually required, and beneficial use is defined
within the state so as to allow instream use. Even where permitted, it is often only the
state or a state agency that can appropriate water for instream use. To give greater
protection for instream flows, private parties could be allowed to appropriate instream
use rights.
• New appropriations would still be junior to all previously-existing water rights, and
would thus not address the problems of long-standing wasteful uses.
• Ultimately, wasteful water practices must be ended, and the law must
encourage reallocation of water rights to higher and better purposes.
References
Cases:
Burgess v. M/V Tamano, 370 F. Supp. 247, 250-51 (D. Me. 1973).
Columbia Rivers Fishermen’s Protection Union v. City of St. Helens, 87 P.2d 195, 197 (1939).
National Sea Clammers Assn. v. City of New York, 616 F.2d 1222, 1234-35 (3d Cir. 1980).
State of La. ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 752 F.2d 1019, 1030 (5th Cir. 1985).
Munninghoff v. Wisconsin Conservation Comm’n, 255 Wisc. 252 (1949).
Other Sources:
- Anderson, Terry L. & Pamela S. Snyder. Priming the Invisible Pump, Property & Envtl. Research Center Policy Series, Feb. 1997.
- Beck, Robert et al., Assessment of Illinois Water Quantity Law: Final Report, July 1996, available at
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/iswsdocs/wsp/IlWaterQuantityLaw.pdf.
- Caponera, Dante A. Principles of Water Law and Administration. 1992.
- Foran, Paul G. et al, Survey of Eastern Water Law: A Report to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Sept. 1995, available at
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/wsp/law.asp.
- Freyfogle, Eric T. Natural Resources Law: Private Rights & Collective Governance. 2007.
- Freyfogle, Eric T. and Dale D. Goble. Wildlife Law: Cases and Materials. 2002.
- George A. Gould, et al. Cases and Materials on Water Law. 2005.
- Getches, David. Water Law: In a Nutshell. 2d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1990.
- Gillian, David M. and Thomas C. Brown. Instream Flow Protection: Seeking a Balance in Western Water Use. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press, 1997.
-Pharris, James K. and Tom McDonald. An Introduction to Washington Water Law, Office of the Attorney General, Jan. 2000, available at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0011012.pdf.
- Pomeroy, John Norton and Henry Campbell Black. A Treatise on the Law of Water Rights (2008).
- Reisner, Marc and Sarah Bates. Overtapped Oasis: Reform or Revolution for Western Water. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1990.
- Sax, J.L. et al. Legal Control of Water Resources: Cases and Materials. 4th ed. 2006.
- The Water Report: Water Rights, Water Quality and Water Solutions in the West. http://www.thewaterreport.com/
- Bibliography on water resources available at http://www.ppl.nl/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=82.
The End