Prior-appropriation water rights

Last updated

Prior appropriation water rights is the legal doctrine that the first person to take a quantity of water from a water source for "beneficial use" (agricultural, industrial or household) has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose.

Contents

Subsequent users can take the remaining water for their own beneficial use if they do not impinge on the rights of previous users.

The doctrine developed in the Western United States and is different from riparian water rights, which are applied in the rest of the United States. Water is very scarce in the West and so must be allocated sparingly, based on the productivity of its use. The right is also allotted to those who are "first in time of use."

Origin of the doctrine

The appropriation doctrine originated in California around the time of the Gold Rush where miners were looking for ways to increase the amount of water available for mining operations. The 1855 California Supreme Court case of Irwin v. Phillips is what brought the water appropriation problems to light. Matthew Irwin diverted a stream for his mining operation. Shortly afterward, Robert Phillips started a mining operation downstream and eventually tried to divert the water back to its original streambed. The case was taken all the way to the California Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the appropriation law.

Details

Each drop of rain falling through the sky has already been allocated to a user. Leave the hose running between rinses while you wash your car and you won't run afoul of the law; but if you gather a pailful of rainwater and pour on your tomato plant, look over your shoulder for a water cop. You will be preventing those raindrops from entering the watershed, depriving people downstream from the surrounding creeks and rivers of their rights to use their apportioned amounts of streamflow. The doctrine of prior appropriation comes crashing up against the imperative to conserve scarce water. Colorado made it legal for some homeowners to harvest rain and snow from their roofs. Tucson is encouraging its citizens to gather rainwater. Santa Fe made catchment devices mandatory for new dwellings. But, in Utah and Washington (with the exception of Seattle), harvesting raindrops is still a crime.

Stephen Grace [1]

The legal details vary from state to state; however, the general principle is that water rights are unconnected to land ownership, and can be sold or mortgaged like other property. These rights can be lost over time if non-use of the water source is demonstrated or if the water has not been used for a certain number of years. [2]

There are four essential elements: intent, diversion, beneficial use, and priority. The first person to use a quantity of water from a water source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. Subsequent users can use the remaining water for their own beneficial purposes provided that they do not impinge on the rights of previous users; this is the priority element of the doctrine. In addition to this, a user may not change the intent in which he is appropriating water such that the change hinders the use by another. [2] These Preservation of Conditions were granted to the second user after Farmers High Line v. City of Golden (CO 1954).

Beneficial use is commonly defined as agricultural, industrial or household use. Ecological purposes, such as maintaining a natural body of water and the wildlife that depends on it, were not initially deemed as beneficial uses in some Western states but have been accepted in some jurisdictions. The extent to which private parties may own such rights varies among the states. [3]

Each water right has a yearly quantity and an appropriation date. Each year, the user with the earliest appropriation date (known as the "senior appropriator") may use up to their full allocation (provided the water source can supply it). Then the user with the next earliest appropriation date may use their full allocation and so on. In times of drought, users with junior appropriation dates might not receive their full allocation or even any water at all.

When a water right is sold, it retains its original appropriation date. Only the amount of water historically consumed can be transferred if a water right is sold. For example, if alfalfa is grown, using flood irrigation, the amount of the return flow may not be transferred, only the amount that would be necessary to irrigate the amount of alfalfa historically grown. If a water right is not used for a beneficial purpose for a period of time it may lapse under the doctrine of abandonment. Abandonment of a water right is rare, but occurred in Colorado in a case involving the South Fork of San Isabel Creek in Saguache County, Colorado. [4]

For water sources with many users, a government or quasi-government agency is usually charged with overseeing allocations. Allocations involving water sources that cross state borders or international borders can be quite contentious, and are generally governed by federal court rulings, interstate agreements and international treaties.

Even though water markets are increasingly gaining ground, many have criticized the prior appropriation system for failing to adequately adjust to society's evolving values. For example, the vast majority of water in the West still is allocated to agricultural uses despite the cries for additional water from growing cities. Additionally, the high demand for the allocation of water can cause an over-appropriation of the waters. This means that there are more water rights for that particular stream than there is water actually available. [5] For example, in Nevada, approximately 45 basins are over-appropriated. [6] Similarly, environmentalists and those who use rivers for recreational and/or scenic purposes have demanded that more water be left in rivers and streams. The prior appropriation system has in many ways inhibited these calls for change. [7]

Prior appropriation adoptions

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming all use the prior appropriation doctrine, with permitting and reporting as their regulatory system. [8]

California and Texas recognize a dual doctrine system that employs both riparian and prior appropriation rights. Oregon mainly uses the prior appropriation doctrine with some remnants of the riparian doctrine. [8] Landowners have rights to water on their own land at a certain time at which it is then incorporated into the appropriation system. [9]

In these cases, riparian rights take precedence, unless they are not claimed by a certain date or are not used within a certain number of years. [2]

Arizona adopted the prior appropriation doctrine such that a person could acquire this water right simply by applying it to beneficial use and posting an appropriation notice at the point of diversion. On June 12, 1919, they enacted the Public Water Code in which the person must apply for and obtain a permit for water use. [10]

The appropriation doctrine was adopted in Colorado in 1872 when the territorial court ruled in Yunker v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 552 (1872), that a non-riparian user who had previously applied part of the water from a stream to beneficial use had superior rights to the water with respect to a riparian owner who claimed a right to use of all the water at a later time. The question was not squarely presented again to the Colorado Court until 1882 when in the landmark case, Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882), the court explicitly adopted the appropriation doctrine and rejected the riparian doctrine, citing Colorado irrigation and mining practices and the nature of the climate. The decision in Coffin ruled that prior to adoption of the appropriation doctrine in the Colorado Constitution of 1876 that the riparian doctrine had never been the law in Colorado. [11] [12] Within 20 years the appropriation doctrine, the so-called Colorado Doctrine, had been adopted, in whole or part, by most of the states in the Western United States that had an arid climate. [13]

New Mexico enacted its appropriate Surface-Water Code in 1907. Later, in 1931, New Mexico enacted the Underground Water Law that adapted the state's surface law to ground water. [14]

The prior-appropriation doctrine was adopted in 1973 in Montana under the 1973 Water Use Act. Later, they then passed the Montana Ground Water Assessment Act in 1991. [15]

In 1967, Texas passed the Water Rights Adjudication Act in regards to surface waters such that the allocation of these waters was under a unified permit system. [16]

Prior Appropriation Theory applied to other goods

Water is not the only public good that has been subject to prior appropriation. The same first in time, first in right theory has been used in the United States to encourage and give a legal framework for other commercial activities.

The early prospectors and miners in the California Gold Rush of 1849, and later gold and silver rushes in the western United States, applied appropriation theory to mineral deposits. The first one to discover and begin mining a deposit was acknowledged to have a legal right to mine. Because appropriation theory in mineral lands and water rights developed in the same time and place, it is likely that they influenced one another. This was seen in the California case Irwin v. Phillips, 5 Cal. 140 (1855) which decided a water rights dispute between two non-riparian miners on the basis of "first in time, first in right", a maxim drawn from equity. [17] As with water rights, mining rights could be forfeited by nonuse. The miners codes were later legalized by the federal government in 1866, and then in the Mining Law of 1872.

The Homestead Act of 1862 granted legal title to the first farmer to put public land into agricultural production. This first in time right to agricultural land may have been influenced by appropriation theory applied to mineral lands.

In recent years, there has been some discussion of limiting air pollution by granting rights to existing pollution sources. Then it has been argued, a free cap and trade market could develop in pollution rights. This would be prior appropriation theory applied to air pollution. Recent concern over carbon dioxide and global warming has led to an economic market in CO2 emissions, in which some companies wish to balance emissions increases by offsetting decreases in existing emissions sources. This is essentially acknowledging a prior appropriation right to existing CO2 emitters.

See also

Related Research Articles

Acequia small channel that conducts water, especially for irrigation

An acequia or séquia is a community-operated watercourse used in Spain and former Spanish colonies in the Americas for irrigation. Particularly in Spain, the Andes, northern Mexico, and the modern-day American Southwest, acequias are usually historically engineered canals that carry snow runoff or river water to distant fields. It can also refer to the long central pool in a Moorish garden, such as the Generalife in the Alhambra in Southern Iberia.

Water resources law

Water resources law is the field of law dealing with the ownership, control, and use of water as a resource. It is most closely related to property law, and is distinct from laws governing water quality.

Homestead principle legal principle that you own unclaimed natural resources by first using them

The homestead principle is the principle by which one gains ownership of an unowned natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation. Appropriation could be enacted by putting an unowned resource to active use, joining it with previously acquired property or by marking it as owned.

Land claim Legal declaration of desired control over an area

A land claim is defined as "the pursuit of recognized territorial ownership by a group or individual". The phrase is usually only used with respect to disputed or unresolved land claims. Some types of land claims include aboriginal land claims, Antarctic land claims, and post-colonial land claims.

Riparian water rights is a system for allocating water among those who possess land along its path. It has its origins in English common law. Riparian water rights exist in many jurisdictions with a common law heritage, such as Canada, Australia, and states in the eastern United States.

Water right in water law refers to the right of a user to use water from a water source, e.g., a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious. In other areas, especially arid areas where irrigation is practiced, such systems are often the source of conflict, both legal and physical. Some systems treat surface water and ground water in the same manner, while others use different principles for each.

California Department of Water Resources agency in California

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is part of the California Natural Resources Agency. The Department of Water Resources is responsible for the State of California's management and regulation of water usage. The department was created in 1956 by Governor Goodwin Knight following severe flooding across Northern California in 1955, combining the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Public Works with the State Engineer's Office, the Water Project Authority, and the State Water Resources Board. It has its headquarters in Sacramento.

United States groundwater law is that area of United States law related to groundwater.

Water trading is the process of buying and selling water access entitlements, also often called water rights. The terms of the trade can be either permanent or temporary, depending on the legal status of the water rights. Some of the western states of the United States, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Iran and Spain's Canary Islands have water trading schemes. Some consider Australia's to be the most sophisticated and effective in the world. Some other countries, especially in South Asia, also have informal water trading schemes. Water markets tend to be local and informal, as opposed to more formal schemes.

Water politics in the Nile Basin

The Nile river is subject to political interactions. It is the world's longest river flowing 6,700 kilometers through ten countries in northeastern Africa – Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt with varying climates.

Water in California Water supply and distribution in the U.S. state of California

California's interconnected water system serves over 30 million people and irrigates over 5,680,000 acres (2,300,000 ha) of farmland. As the world's largest, most productive, and most controversial water system, it manages over 40 million acre feet (49 km3) of water per year.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations. This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of American Indians in cases where the rights were not clear. The case was first argued on October 24, 1907 and a decision was reached January 6, 1908. This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of American Indian water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of American Indian people.

Water law in the United States refers to the Water resources law laws regulating water as a resource in the United States. Beyond issues common to all jurisdictions attempting to regulate water's uses, water law in the United States must contend with:

Solar access

Solar access is the ability of one property to continue to receive sunlight across property lines without obstruction from another’s property. Solar access is calculated using a sun path diagram. Sun is the source of our vision and energy. Its movements inform our perception of time and space. Access to sun is essential to energy conservation and to the quality of our lives.

Water in Colorado State of Colorado water use and rights

Water in Colorado is of significant importance, as the American state of Colorado is the 7th-driest state in America. As result, water rights generate conflict, with many water lawyers in the state.

<i>National Audubon Society v. Superior Court</i>

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court was a key case in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the principle that certain resources are too valuable to be privately owned and must remain available for public use. In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, the court held that the public trust doctrine restricts the amount of water that can be withdrawn from navigable waterways. The basis for the Public Trust Doctrine goes back to Roman law. Under Roman law, the air, the rivers, the sea and the seashore were incapable of private ownership; they were dedicated to the use of the public. In essence, the public trust doctrine establishes the role of the state as having trustee environmental duties owed to the public that are subsequently enforceable by the public. There is judicial recognition of this, dictating that certain rights of the public are key to individual common law rights. Judicial recognition of the public trust doctrine has been established for tidelands and non-navigable waterways, submerged land and the waters above them, and preservation of a public interest.

Colorado Water Trust* (“CWT”) is a non-profit conservation organization based in the state of Colorado. Its mission is to engage in and support voluntary, market-based efforts to restore and protect streamflows using permanent acquisitions of water, leases of water, and physical solutions. CWT is also a resource to Colorado land trusts encountering water issues in connection with their land conservation activities.

Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255; 10 P. 674; (1886), is a historic case in the conflict between riparian and appropriative water rights. Decided by a vote of four to three in the Supreme Court of California, the ruling held that appropriative rights were secondary to riparian rights.

Sustainable Water and Innovative Irrigation Management (SWIIM) is a farm-optimization and water-conservation system owned by SWIIM System, Ltd. that was developed by Regenesis Management Group, LLC., a Denver, Colorado-based incubator that focuses on natural resource conservation and optimization technology.

The California Water Commission Act of 1913 was the first attempt by the legislature of the state of California to address water rights in a comprehensive manner. The Act was necessitated by the complicated landscape of competing water rights doctrines, demands for reclamation and irrigation, and tension between large landowners and smaller farmers all in the context of California's unique climate and topography. The State Water Commission created by the Act was given the responsibility of permitting and licensing water appropriators post-1914, but had no authority over pre-1914 claims. Ultimately the Act improved the recording of water rights but was inadequate to supervise the distribution of water and left many unresolved issues.

References

  1. Grace, Stephen (2012). Dam Nation. p. 224.
  2. 1 2 3
  3. "Western States Instream Flow Summary". National Science & Technology Center. Archived from the original on 2007-07-15. Retrieved 2007-05-08.
  4. San Luis Val. Land & Cattle Co. v. Hazard, 114 Colo. 233 (1945).
  5. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-09-13. Retrieved 2014-12-12.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  6. Brigham Daniels, Emerging Commons Tragic Institutions | Environmental Law | Vol. 37 (2007), pp. 515-571
  7. 1 2
  8. Ralph Henry Hess (December 1916). "The Colorado Water Right". Columbia Law Review. 16 (8): 649–664. doi:10.2307/1110121. JSTOR   1110119.
  9. Vranesh, George (1987). Colorado Water Law, Volume 1. Boulder, Colorado: Vranesh Publications. pp. 62–63.
  10. Vranesh, George (1987). Colorado Water Law, Volume 1. Boulder, Colorado: Vranesh Publications. pp. 63–64.
  11. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-06-01. Retrieved 2014-12-12.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  12. Vranesh, George (1987). Colorado Water Law, Volume 1. Boulder, Colorado: Vranesh Publications. p. 62.