FUTURE NEEDS FOR DEVELOPMENT 257 



Carried to an ultimate conclusion, these decisions might mean 

 that in many areas the first appropriator could require damages 

 from every subsequent appropriator and each subsequent ap- 

 propriator, in turn of priority, could require damages from all 

 later appropriators, until the last one would have to pay tribute to 

 all. If the doctrine of appropriation is to accomplish the desired 

 end of making full use of the ground-water resources of the state, 

 it must be recognized that some lowering of the water table or of 

 the artesian pressure is a reasonable result of a reasonable method 

 of diversion (pumping) of the water, and should not constitute a 

 basis for damages. 



More recently it has been stated: 2i 



If future decisions should hold that rights to divert and use 

 water from ground-water bodies include the right to maintenance 

 of the elevation of the water in the wells through which such water 

 is diverted, it would be a severe blow to the interest of conservation 

 and highest utilization of such supplies. There is a great need for 

 clarification of this phase of ground-water law. 



In a recent decision of the Utah Supreme Court 25 the prior 

 appropriator was denied redress for loss of artesian pressure 

 caused by the operations of a subsequent appropriator. The 

 remarks of Justice Wolfe, concurring in the decision but offer- 

 ing a sounder hydrologic basis for that decision, are quoted: 



I do not think we should hold, in view of our overarching water 

 policy, that at this stage of our knowledge of the distribution and 

 inventory of underground water resources prior users gain a 

 vested right in a means of diversion of water. This must be left 

 flexible. . . . Prior appropriators by first tapping the basin might 

 reap the benefit of a static head sufficient to bring the water di- 

 verted to the surface, but to require all subsequent appropriators 

 to preserve this means of bringing the water to the surface would 

 be to require them to preserve the static head, and thereby pre- 

 vent the widest use of that underground water, or introduce im- 

 practical problems of allocating among numerous subsequent ap- 



24 Baker, D. M., Discussion of Tolman and Stipp's "Analysis of Legal Con- 

 cepts of Subflow . . . ," Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 66, p. 380, 1940. 



25 Hansen v. Salt Lake City (205 Pac. 2d sec. 255), 1948. 



