Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The United States recognizes two types of water rights. Although use and overlap varies over time and by state, the western arid states that were once under Mexico and Spain generally follow the doctrine of prior appropriation, also known as "first-come, first-served", but water rights for the eastern states follow riparian law.
Each state exhibits variations upon the basic principles of the prior appropriation doctrine. Texas and the states directly north of it; the West Coast states, and Mississippi have a mixture of systems. Hawaii uses a form of riparian rights, and Alaska uses appropriation-based rights.
The basic problem is one that will be very hard to solve because it is inherent in the fundamental principle of water management in most of the West: the doctrine of prior appropriation. Prior ...
In 1855, California also adopted the right of prior appropriation. [2] [3] Appropriative rights were based on a first come, first served philosophy. This second system of water rights was developed for miners and farmers who did not own riparian land. The first to appropriate the water's use had rights to it.
Where water is more scarce (like in the Western United States), allocation of flowing water is premised upon prior appropriation. "The appropriation doctrine confers upon one who actually diverts and uses water the right to continue to do so provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial uses", regardless of whether that person ...
The other major model is the prior appropriations model, the first party to make use of a water supply has the first rights to it, regardless of whether the property is near the water source. [6] Riparian systems are generally more common in areas where water is plentiful, while appropriations systems are more common in dry climates.
Specifically, the federal suit was about rights the federal government had previously reserved, rather than rights based on the prior appropriation doctrine. Finally, Stewart gave two more reasons not to dismiss the federal suit: issues of federal law were involved, as were the rights of Native American tribes (who were typically free of state ...