Dunning, Harrison C.

English

Colorado Law

University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Water Resources Allocation: Laws and Emerging Issues: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 8-11) 1981 6-8-1981 Hybrid Systems: Outline Harrison C. Dunning Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/water-resources-allocation-laws-and-emerging-issues  Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legislation Commons, Litigation Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Urban Studies Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Dunning, Harrison C., "Hybrid Systems: Outline" (1981). Water Resources Allocation: Laws and Emerging Issues: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 8-11). 6. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/water-resources-allocation-laws-and-emerging-issues/6 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.     Harrison C. Dunning, Hybrid Systems: Outline, in WATER RESOURCES ALLOCATION: LAWS AND EMERGING ISSUES (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1981).  Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.  OUTLINE"HYBRID SYSTEMS"BYHARRISON C. DUNNINGPROFESSOR OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVISWATER RESOURCES ALLOCATION: LAWS AND EMERGING ISSUESTHE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF LAWI. INTRODUCTIONA. Review of the principal differences between riparian andappropriative water rights1. Need for use2. Place of use - watershed protection3. Quantification - water subject to the right4. PrioritiesB. To what extent do these differences represent fundamentalincompatibility between the two types of water rights?II. BIRTH OF A HYBRID JURISDICTION: HOW CALIFORNIA DEVELOPED THE"CALIFORNIA DOCTRINE"A. Irwin v. Phillips, 5 Cal. 140 (1855): appropriative rightsare recognized in a way which does not preclude riparian rightsB. Crandall v. Woods, 8 Cal. 136 (1857): an early recognition ofriparian rightsC. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674 (1886)1. The political context of this "battle of the giants" overKern River water2. By a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of California againrecognizes riparian rights3. The Lux method for establishing priorities where riparian•and appropriative rights exist on the same watercourse4. The allocation of Kern River water after Lux v. Haggina. The Miller-Haggin Agreementb. The Shaw Decreec. The Kern River Water Rights and Storage AgreementElD. Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 74 P. 766 (1903)1. The hybrid approach applied to groundwater2. Priorities where overlying and non-overlying rightsexist for a particular aquiferIII. TWENTIETH CENTURY SWINGS OF THE PENDULUM FOR THE RIPARIAN RIGHTIN CALIFORNIAA. The Water Commission Act of 1913: an (unsuccessful) frontalassault on the riparian right by the California Legislature1. Background: the report of the Conservation Commission2. The statutory provisions3. Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Company, 20081, 252 P. 607 (1926): the limitation of water used forthe irrigation of uncultivated areas to no more than twoand one-half acre feet per acre per year held to be beyondthe police power of the statea. The Herminghaus decision provokes a state constitutionalamendment in 1928 which subjects riparians to a reason-ableness standard in disputes with appropriators4. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District, 3 Cal. 2d 489, 45 P. 2d 972 (1935): the "OregonSolution" struck down on the basis of the 1928 constitutionalamendmentB. Joslin v. Mann Municipal Water District, -67 Cal. 2d 132, 60Cal. Rptr. 377, 429 P. 2d 889 (1967): a judicial attack on theriparian right?C. Statements of Water Diversion and Use: an ineffective attemptto develop an inventory of riparian usesD. In re Waters of Long Valley Creek System, 25 Cal. 3d 339, 158Cal. Rptr. 351, 599 P. 2d 656 (1979)1. The statutory adjudication system2. The treatment of unexercised riparian rights in statutoryadjudications•E2IV. EVALUATION OF THE HYBRID SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIAA. Providing certainty and stability in water rights: riparianand appropriative rights comparedB. Providing for watershed protection1. By riparian rights: the Owens Valley example2. By area of origin protection statutes3. By the public trust doctrineC. Stream settlements, by agreement or by adjudication: beyondthe hybrid system?V. DEVELOPMENTS OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA: HAS THE CALIFORNIA "DOCTRINE"BECOME THE CALIFORNIA "RULE"?E3

Hybrid Systems: Outline

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=water-resources-allocation-laws-and-emerging-issues

Hybrid Systems: Outline

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Colorado Law