Another Nevada rancher who went head to head with the BLM describes riparian water doctrine, Prior Appropriation Water Doctrine, and public land.

Monday, 20 March 2006 00:00
Huge Win for Property Owners
Written by William F. Jasper

THE NEW AMERICAN: Wayne, why did the United States attempt to reclassify your ranch as public land?

Wayne Hage: The answer to that question really comes down to a failure or unwillingness on the part of the federal government to understand that private property in the West developed under an entirely different doctrine than did property in those states east of the 100th meridian.

TNA: Can you briefly explain the difference between these two property doctrines you mentioned?

Hage: The eastern states, up to the 100th meridian, that’s basically the line between Kansas and and Colorado, were settled under the concept of the riparian water doctrine. The riparian doctrine, which has roots in Anglo Saxon law, says in simple terms that if a person acquires lawful title to a parcel of land he has the exclusive right to the utilization of the water and vegetation on the land. The riparian doctrine had historically applied to areas of adequate or excess rainfall.

TNA: How does this riparian water doctrine, as you call it, differ from the doctrine of land ownership in the West?

Hage: The 17 western states fall almost entirely under the Prior Appropriation Water Doctrine. Under that doctrine, the person who acquires title to the water has a right to acquire the use of as much land as is necessary to put the water to beneficial use. This water doctrine developed anciently in the desert regions of the old world.

..............................................

More:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...property-owners