Prior-appropriation water rights

Last updated

In the American legal system, prior appropriation water rights is the 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. [1] [2] Subsequent users can take the remaining water for their own use if they do not impinge on the rights of previous users. The doctrine is sometimes summarized, "first in time, first in right".

Contents

Prior appropriation rights do not constitute a full ownership right in the water, merely the right to withdraw it, and can be abrogated if not used for an extended period of time.

Origin

Water is very scarce in the West and so must be allocated sparingly, based on the productivity of its use. The prior appropriation doctrine developed in the Western United States from Spanish (and later Mexican) civil law and differs from the riparian water rights that apply in the rest of the United States. The appropriation doctrine originated in Gold-Rush–era California, when miners sought to acquire water for mining operations. In the 1855 case of Irwin v. Phillips, 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 to the California Supreme Court, which ruled for Irwin. [3]

Nature of the right

The legal details of prior appropriation vary from state to state. Under the prior appropriation system, the right is initially allotted to those who are "first in time of use"; these rights of withdrawal can then trade on the open market, like other property. [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.

A claim of prior appropriation must prove four sub-claims: diversion (that the water had been withdrawn), priority (that the withdrawer had diverted water prior to the other claimant), intent (that the water had been withdrawn by design), and beneficial use (that the water was put to a publicly-acceptable end). If proved, the initial person to use a quantity of water from a water source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use the same quantity of water for the same 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. But neither can a senior user change the manner (i.e., location) in which they appropriate water to the detriment of a junior user. [5] These Preservation of Conditions were granted to the second user after Farmers Highline Canal & Reservoir Co. v. City of Golden, 272 P.2d 629 (Colo. 1954). A senior water user could, for example, only have been using the water during a particular season. Then the purchaser of the water right could only use the water in the same season as when the right was established. In addition, the state may put additional conditions on the use of the water right to prevent polluting or inefficient uses of water. [6]

Beneficial use is commonly defined as agricultural, industrial or household use. The doctrine has historically excluded ecological purposes, such as maintaining a natural body of water and the wildlife that depends on it, but some jurisdictions now accept such claims. The extent to which private parties may own such rights varies among the states. [7]

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 cases of water shortages, prior-appropriation does not require a senior user to utilize less water than usual. Therefore, during times of drought, users with junior appropriation dates might not receive their full allocation or even any water at all. [8]

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.

Prior appropriation rights are subject to certain adverse possession-type rules to reduce speculation. [9] Withdrawal rights can be lost or shrunk over time if unused for a certain number of years, or if a litigant can demonstrate that the water's use is not beneficial. [3] [5] 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. [10]

Interaction with other allocation methods

In some states, junior upstream water users may take water from downstream users, as long as they return the water in comparable quantity and quality. [11]

California and Texas grant waterfront property owners water allocations prior to any other users, in a hybrid system with riparian water rights. [5] [12] In Oregon, landowners have rights to water on their own land at a certain time at which it is then incorporated into the appropriation system. [13] [ failed verification ]

Adoption

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming all use the prior appropriation doctrine, with permitting and reporting as their regulatory system. [12] Of these, California, Texas, and Oregon recognize a dual doctrine system that employs both riparian and prior appropriation rights (see § Interaction with other allocation methods). Eight states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) engage in prior appropriation without recognizing the riparian doctrine. [14]

However, prior appropriation does not always determine water allocation in these states because various federal regulations also have priority over senior users. [15] [16] For example, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 seeks to protect animals at risk of extinction, so a senior user's rights may be restricted in favor of federal regulation protecting the habitats of endangered animals. [17] These federal rules manifest as a prior allotment by the Secretary of the Interior. [18]

Arizona

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. [19] On June 12, 1919, they enacted the Public Water Code in which the person must apply for and obtain a permit for water use. [20]

Colorado

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. [21] [22] 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. [23]

New Mexico

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. [24]

Montana

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. [25]

Texas

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. [26]

Criticism

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 [27]

Even though water markets increasingly gain ground, many criticize the prior appropriation system for failing to adequately adjust to society's evolving values and needs. [28] Environmentalists and recreational river-users demand more water be left in rivers and streams, but courts have been slow to accept these requests as beneficial uses. [29] [30] Conversely, the tool of beneficial use is too tied to custom to encourage users to conserve. An appropriator who uses water inefficiently retains the right to the full allotment, but an appropriator who uses only a portion risks losing the right to the rest, and water right markets remain too illiquid to purchase any excess. [31] [30] As a result, the vast majority of water in the West still is allocated to agricultural uses despite cries for additional water from growing cities. [9]

High demand can cause an over-appropriation of the waters, in which there are more water rights for a particular stream than water actually available. [11] This leads to an apparent inefficiency: if a water source is over-appropriated, the latest users will almost never see water from their claims. But without those claims, excess water from an unusually wet year will go to waste.

In 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. [32] 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

Time immemorial is a phrase meaning time extending beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition, indefinitely ancient, "ancient beyond memory or record". The phrase is used in legally significant contexts as well as in common parlance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acequia</span> Community-operated watercourse

An acequia or séquia is a community-operated watercourse used in Spain and former Spanish colonies in the Americas for irrigation. Acequias are found in parts of Spain, the Andes, northern Mexico, and the modern-day American Southwest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water resources law</span> Law and regulations that relate to water resources

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land claim</span> 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, New Zealand, and states in the eastern United States.

Water right in water law is 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Department of Water Resources</span>

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is part of the California Natural Resources Agency and is responsible for the management and regulation of the State of California's water usage. The department was created in 1956 by Governor Goodwin Knight following severe flooding across Northern California in 1955, where they combined 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 is headquartered in Sacramento.

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

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.

Appropriation is a process by which previously unowned natural resources, particularly land, become the property of a person or group of persons. The term is widely used in economics in this sense. In certain cases, it proceeds under very specifically defined forms, such as driving stakes or other such markers into the land claimed, which form gave rise to the term “staking a claim.” "Squatter’s rights" are another form of appropriation, but are usually asserted against land to which ownership rights of another party have been recognized. In legal regimes recognizing such acquisition of property, the ownership of duly appropriated holdings enjoys such protections as the law provides for ownership of property in general.

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.

An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B". An easement is a property right and type of incorporeal property in itself at common law in most jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water in California</span> Water supply and distribution in the U.S. state of California

California's interconnected water system serves almost 40 million people and irrigates over 5,680,000 acres (2,300,000 ha) of farmland. As the world's largest, most productive, and potentially most controversial water system, it manages over 40 million acre-feet (49 km3) of water per year. Use of available water averages 50% environmental, 40% agricultural and 10% urban, though this varies considerably by region and between wet and dry years. In wet years, "environmental" water averages 61%, while in dry years it averages 41%, and can be even lower in critically dry years.

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 indigenous people 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 indigenous water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of indigenous people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water law in the United States</span>

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:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water in Colorado</span> 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.

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.

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.

The origin of water law in California dates back to the 1848 Gold Rush and the historical event's direct effect on water law development in the region. Despite California attaining statehood in 1850, water law in the region had already been rapidly developing since January 1848 due to the resource's centrality in gold processing and mining. The foundations of the 1850s Gold Rush's water laws, initially developing in the mining camps, are still present in California's modern water code, notably in the principles within prior appropriation.

References

  1. ↑ 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waters § 355 (2021).
  2. ↑ "Prior appropriation doctrine". Wex. Cornell Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2021-10-14.
  3. 1 2 Saxowsky, David (12 Jan 2011). Ag Law Text. Fargo, ND: NDSU Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics. Retrieved 2021-10-21.
  4. ↑ Douglas County v. Sedalia Water and Sanitation District, 343P.3d16 (Colo.2015).
  5. 1 2 3 "Water Appropriation Systems" (PDF). Energy & Environmental Research Center. University of North Dakota.
  6. ↑ Getches, David H. (2009). Water law in a nutshell. St. Paul, Minnesota: Thomson/West. p. 109–110. ISBN   978-0-314-19951-5 . Retrieved 8 June 2024.
  7. ↑ Hecox, Eric. "Western States Instream Flow Summary". Western States Water Laws. US BLM National Science & Technology Center. Archived from the original on 2007-07-15. Retrieved 2007-05-08.
  8. ↑ Craig, Robin (2018). "Drought and Public Necessity: Can A Common-Law "Stick" Increase Flexibility In Western Water Law?". Texas A&M Law Review. 6: 31 – via Texas A&M.
  9. 1 2 Daniels, Brigham (August 14, 2008). "Emerging Commons and Tragic Institutions". Environmental Law. 37 (3): 515–571. JSTOR   43267404. SSRN   1227745 – via BYU Law digital commons.
  10. ↑ San Luis Val. Land & Cattle Co. v. Hazard(14 Colo. 2331945).
  11. 1 2 Hobbs, Gregory. "Appendix 2.1". Citizen's Guide to Colorado Water Law (PDF) (2nd ed.). Colorado Foundation for Water Education. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 Aug 2014. Retrieved 2014-12-12– via Roaring Fork Conservancy.
  12. 1 2 Hendrick, Scott (2013-02-20). "State Water Withdrawal Regulations". National Conference of State Legislatures. Archived from the original on 7 Mar 2016.
  13. ↑ "Water Appropriations Systems and State Programs" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-21. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
  14. ↑ Gopalakrishnan, Chennat (1973). "The Doctrine of Prior Appropriation and Its Impact on Water Development: A Critical Survey". The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 32 (1): 61–72. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1973.tb02180.x. ISSN   0002-9246. JSTOR   3485791.
  15. ↑ "Supreme Court clears the way for the central Arizona project". A Century of Cooperation: Reclamation and Arizona. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado region (US Department of the Interior). Retrieved 2021-10-14.
  16. ↑ Arizona v. California , 373U.S.546 (Supreme Court1963).
  17. ↑ 16 U.S.C. § 1531 Conservation (1973).
  18. ↑ 43 C.F.R. § 427.1 Water Conservation (2008).
  19. ↑ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-141 Waters (2021).
  20. ↑ "ADWR - Surface Water Rights". Archived from the original on 2014-12-13. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
  21. ↑ Ralph Henry Hess (December 1916). "The Colorado Water Right". Columbia Law Review. 16 (8): 649–664. doi:10.2307/1110121. JSTOR   1110119.
  22. ↑ Vranesh 1987, pp. 62–63.
  23. ↑ Vranesh 1987, pp. 63–64.
  24. ↑ Gisser, Micha. "Water Markets and the Prior Appropriation Doctrine".
  25. ↑ "Managing Montana's Water" (PDF). Clark Fork River Basin Task Force. July 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-06-01. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
  26. ↑ "Texas water law". Texas Water. Texas A&M University. 2014. Retrieved 2021-04-25.
  27. ↑ Grace, Stephen (2012). Dam Nation. p. 224.
  28. ↑ Daniels 2008, fn. 271: "While the case law has been slow to evolve, some courts have seemed to indicate that they are willing to consider beneficial use in relative rather than objective terms. See, e.g., Butler, Crockett, and Walsh Dev. Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co., 98 P.3d 1, 11-12 (Utah 2004); Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 225 Cal. App. 3d 548, 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). Despite this, courts have been unwilling to impose relative standards in a meaningful way."
  29. ↑ Boyd, Jesse A. (Fall 2003). "Hip Deep: A Survey of State Instream Flow Law from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean". Natural Resources Journal. 43 (4): 1151–1216 – via UNM digital repository.
  30. 1 2 Abeln, Rebecca (2005). "Instream Flows, Recreation as Beneficial Use, and the Public Interest in Colorado Water Law". Water Law Review. 8 (2): 531–532.
  31. ↑ Neumann, Janet C. (1998). "Beneficial Use, Waste, and Forfeiture: The Inefficient Search for Efficiency in Western Water Use" (PDF). Environmental Law Review. 28: 919–996 – via National Agricultural Law Center, especially §III.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  32. ↑ Vranesh, George (1987). Colorado Water Law. Vol. 1. Boulder, Colorado: Vranesh Publications. p. 62.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.