WATER LAWS, the body of legislative enactment and legal decisions governing the rights to the use of water. In comparison Inds the laws concerning ownership of land and of other property the water laws, par ticularly in the United States, are extremety complicated. There is a great amount of law withent lack of consistency in the pre and decisions. The cause of this lies largely in the physical fact that water se a substance varies in quantity from day to day and until recent years the principles gov erning its occurrence and the methods of measurements have not been well understood. In fact they are still more or less of a mystery to many members of law-making bodies. More than this there has been an attempt to apply rules of law which while suitable for per manent or fixed objects are hardly applicable to a substance the component particles of which are ever flowing away and are ever renewed, but in fluctuating quantity. To illustrate some of the different conditions and viewpoints take first the case of a natural spring or pond on a certain tract of land. It is generally conceded that ownership of the land carries with it the full right to the use of this mall body of water. If, however, the spring or pond discharges onto a piece of land be longing to another proprietor, it is obvious that the second owner has certain rights due to the fact that the stream flows along or across his land. Under ordinary conditions the upper owner may not deprive the lower of his fair share of the water, at least for drinking pur poses for man and beast. The stream flows on continually, joins with others and becomes a boundary line between proprietors. Each through his ownership of the land claims cer tain nparian rights in the flowing water. The stream finally becomes of such size as to be of importance to the whole community or State and the latter sometimes claims proprietorship in the bed and banks, these being held by the State for the benefit of the public. It finally becomes of navigable capacity, and, under the terms of the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution of the United States regarding commerce, the control is vested in Congress. In the older part of the country where, under humid conditions, there is usually ample water and to spare, the rule is that each riparian proprietor shall permit the stream to flow through or along his land undisturbed in quantity and unchanged or unpolluted as to quality—his rights being bounded by those of all his neighbors above and below, each having a fair share in the use of the water provided he does not interfere with rights of others. He max utilize the water for power
if in so doing he dues not overflow the lands of others nor interfere with established usages nor with the enjoyment of similar opportunities by others. If, however, a municipality finds it necessary to take water from a stream, it must be prepared to make compensation for any possible rights which may be interfered with. As a rule it cannot exercise the right of eminent domain outside of the borders of the State in which the city is located. It may be thus narrowly circum scribed and hindered from its best growth because of artificial restrictions imposed by State lines.
In the arid and regions in the western part of the United States the common law of England, which has been followed in the humid East, is not in accord with the common necessities of the people. There it 23 possible to cultivate the ground successfully only through the artificial application of water. The lands will remain unproductive and popu lation cannot increase unless the waters are taken from their natural channels to be spread over the ground and the stream channels left practically dry. The rights of riparian proprietors can be no longer observed, as in Eastern States, where under ordinary circumstances there is enough water for all. Out of the necessity of the people has thus grown an entirely different theory, namely, that of appropriation — this being limited to beneficial use, each appropriator being per nutted to take usually only so much water as is needed for the irrigation of his land; even in this he may be required to show an economic use. In the of two or more appropriators not enough water to satisfy their needs, the rule is usually en forced to the effect that first in time is first in right, although this rule is being modified in practice in accordance ty with larger equip, i for example, if the first in time is at a place where there results great waste in getting the water to him, consideration may be taken of the fact that to irrigate one acre thus situated many acres better located must be left dry.