FUTURE NEEDS FOR DEVELOPMENT 245 



elude that it is now perfect. Although it has undergone many 

 changes during the past century many gaps and inconsistencies are 

 still apparent and difficult problems of administration remain un- 

 solved. The Subcommittee believes that in this segment of the 

 field of water law a real opportunity exists to secure legislative 

 modifications of the law governing the acquisition and manage- 

 ment of water rights that will facilitate the wisest conservation and 

 use of water. 



The Supreme Court has stated: 13 "As to every stream 

 within its domain a state may change this common-law rule 

 and permit the appropriation of the flowing water for such 

 purposes as it deems wise. . . ." Statutes and court decisions 

 of several states now define water rights on the basis of several 

 factors in addition to, or in substitution for, the exclusive 

 common-law basis of landownership. Some of the factors 

 and the problems involved in their definition are discussed 

 below. 



WATER RIGHTS INHERENT IN LAND OWNERSHIP. The COmmon- 



law doctrine, that the right to use water is based on owner- 

 ship of land without regard to the time of use or to any actual 

 use at all, is still basic in the majority of states, but various 

 modifications have been made by statute or court decisions 

 in several states. Thus for surface water the riparian doctrine 

 gives certain rights in the stream flow to the owners of land 

 contiguous to a stream but limits them to a "reasonable" use 

 and requires that the use be not injurious to other rights. For 

 ground water under the American doctrine of reasonable use, 

 each landowner is limited to a reasonable use of the water as 

 against the others where there is a common supply; 14 and 

 under the California doctrine of correlative rights, not only 

 must the use be reasonable, but the rights of all landowners 

 are correlative, and where the supply is insufficient for all, each 

 is accorded a "fair and just" proportion. 15 



Even with limitations as to reasonable use or beneficial use 



is United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co. (174 U.S. 690), 1899. 

 14 Basset v. Salisbury Mfg. Co. (43 N.H. 569, 82 Am.Dec. 179), 1862. 

 T-sKatz v. Walkinshaw (141 Calif. 116, 74 Pac. 766), 1903. 



