Chapter 7
American Sedimentation Law and Physical Processes
Publication: Sedimentation Engineering
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
E. COURT CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
1.
Ehrick, E., “The Fundamental Principles of Sociology of the Law,” Moss translation, (1936).
2.
“Science and Sanity,” by Korzybski Albert (1941);
“People in Quandaries,” by Johnson Wendell (1946);
“The Language of Law,” Western Law Review(1958).
3.
“Water Resources and the Law,” Legislative Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., (1958), p. 84.
4.
Baylor Law Review 892, 894, (1935) Note 15; and Ann, 40 A. L. R. 829 (1926). (For discussion of factual bases of these legal classes of water supply.)
5.
The American Judge, 6, 8, (1924), Justice Andrew A. Bruce, North Dakota.
6.
The theory back of this rule is the “cujus est solum” principle. See discussion on p. 85, together with references, “Water Resources and the Law,” supra.
7.
Preservation of Integrity of State Water Laws, 31–44, October, (1942), Natl. Reclamation Assn.
8.
“Roman Contributions to the Law of Soil Conservation,” by Milde Karl F., 19 Fordham Law Review, (1950), p. 192.
9.
24 Minnesota Law Review 902, 903, 904, (1940).
10.
“Water Resources and the Law,” supra;
Hutchins, Wells A., “Selected Problems in the Law of Water Rights,” (1942), p. 3. See also, 28
Harvard Law Review 478; 2
Dakota Law Review 365; 11
Virginia Law Review 159, (1928); 15
Virginia Law Review 177, (1929); 5
Wisconsin Law Review 239; 51
Cent. Law Journal, 360.
11.
1 Alabama Law Journal 117; 8
Cal. Law Review 197; 13
Illinois Law Review 63, (1918); 15
Illinois Law Review 282, 462, (1920, 1921); 17
Illinois Law Review 454, (1923); 14
la. Law Review 547;
“Law of Water Rights in the West,” by Hutchins Wells A., (1942), p. 115;
C. J. S. 805–815; 24
Minnesota Law Review 899, (1940).
12.
24 Minnesota Law Review 399, (1940).
13.
English court decisions prior to 1850 are not authority because the law there was not settled at that time. Shortly after that date, decisions held that the lower owner had no cause of action against upper owners for withholding the natural flow. (Greatex v. Hayward, 8 Exch. 291, 22 L. J. 137, (1853); Rawstrom v. Taylor, 11 Exch. 369, 25 L. J. Exch. 115, 4 W. R. 290, (1856).
14.
For types of capture and intent to confer benefits by taking and putting water to use, see, Rawstrom v. Taylor, supra, domestic use; Benson v. Cook, 47 S. D. 611, 201 N. W. 525, (1924); Terry v. Heppner, 59 S. D. 317, 239 N. W. 759, (1931); Garns v. Rollins, 41 Utah 260, 125 Pac. 867, Ann. Case 1915C 1159, (1912); irrigation; Boynton & Moseley v. Gilman, 53 Vt. 17, (1880), commercial. State v. Hiber, 48 Wyo. 172, 44 P, 2d 1005, (1935), livestock.
15.
Templeton v. Voshloe, 72 Ind. 134, 37 Am. Rep. 150, (1880). (Note the use of the terms “good husbandry” and “proper improvement of the soil.” The courts might have said “sound land use and conservation practices prevalent in the community.”)
16.
Trigg v. Timmerman, 90 Wash. 768, 156 Pac. 846, L. R. A. (1916), F424, (1916), 226 Ala. 400, 147 So. 178; Baker v. Akron, 145 Iowa 485, 122 N. W. 926, 30 L. R. A., United States, 619; Boll v. Ostroot, 25 S. D. 513, 127 N. W. 577, (1910).
17.
59 Minn. 436; 191 Minn. 591, (1934); 2 Minn. L. Rev. 449, (1918); 6 448, 460, (1908); 17 Cent. L. J. 62, 67, (1883); 43 N.H. 569, 577, (1862); 50 N.H. 439, 446, (1870); 71 N.H. 186, (1901); 384 Pac. (2d) 450, 452 (1963); 190 N.W. (2d) 1,7 Michigan Law Review(1971).
18.
Miles v. A. Arena & Co., 23 Cal. App. 2d 680, 683, 73 Pac. 2d 1260, 1262, (1937); Cook v. Haskins, 57 Cal. App. 2d 737, 740, 135 P. 2d 176, 177, (1943).
19.
Vanderweile v. Taylor, 65 N.Y. 341.
20.
Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 496, 61 N.W. 462, 26 L. R. A. 632, (1894).
21.
19 Fordham Law Review 192–197, (1950).
22.
Ashley v. Holbert, 265 N.Y.S. 138, 148 Misc. 45, (1933).
23.
Griffin vs. National Light Co., 60 S.E. 702, 79 S.C. 351, (1908).
24.
Wiel Samuel C., 50 Harv. L. Rev. 254, (1936) and cases cited there;
Weiss Marvin D., Industrial Water Pollution, (1951).
25.
S. C. Wiel, supra; Lindley, Mines, 3d Ed. (1914), S848; Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co., 18 Fed. 753, 756, 774, C. C. D. Cal. (1884); People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co., 66 Cal. 138, 4 Pac. 1152, (1884); 27 Stat. 507, (1893); 34 Stat. 1001, ch. 2077, (1907); Cal. Resources Code, div. 2, Ch. 6.5, sec. 2551 to 2559, (1953); Calif. Water Code, Div. 7, Water Pollution; Hutchins Wells A., “Water Law and Its Significance to the Mining Industry,” February, (1959); 33 U.S.C.A. 661–687.
26.
Civil Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 7, July, (1959), p. 80.
27.
United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 155 F. Supp. 442, (1957). (The fact situation is to be found mainly in this report of the District Court.)
28.
United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 264 F. 2d 289, (1959). (The report by the Circuit Court refers to expert testimony and in dismissing the suit, relies in part at least, upon State ex. rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 United States 22, 24 in which the problem involved suspended solids.)
29.
United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U.S. 482, (1960). Note: The report by the Supreme Court draws attention to another recent case in which sand and gravel in waste water is treated in law as unlawful under S13, and as an obstruction under S10, of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Gulf Atlantic Transportation Co. vs. Becker County Sand and Gravel Co., 122 F. Supp. 13, (1954).
30.
59 Colorado Law Review 1065, (1959) for detailed analysis of the history of the Rivers and Harbors Act, as relating to these basic policy provisions, and to its consideration in the foregoing cases.
31.
United States v. Brazoria County Drainage Dist. No. 31, 2 F. 2d 861.
32.
Angell, Watercourses, 7th Ed., (1877);
Hutchins, Wells A., Law of Water Rights in the West, 7–20, (1942);
Water Resources and the Law, 177–182, (1958),
3 Baylor Law Review 473–476, (1951).
33.
24 Minnesota Law Review 305, (1940).
34.
10 California Law Review 86–89, (1922);
36 Michigan Law Review 346–348, (1937);
6 Arkansas Law Review 68–72, (1952);
36 Texas Law Review 299–321, (1958).
35.
24 Minnesota Law Review 305, (1940) and cases cited therein.
36.
Calif. Civic Code, Sect. 830, 1014, 1015, and Code Civil Proc., Sect. 2077, McBride v. Steinweden, 72 Kansas 508, 83 Pac. 822; Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kansas 511,117 Am. St. Rep. 534, 85 Pac. 763, 6 L. R. A. U. S. 162. Lammers v. Nissen, 4 Nebraska 245; Hammond v. Shepard, 186 Illinois 235, 78 Am. St. Rep. 274, 57 N. E. 867; Wiel, Water Right in the Western States, S862, 901, 902, 3d Ed (1911)
37.
1 Wiel, Water Rights, S692–695, 3d Ed., (1911).
38.
Dietrich v. Northwestern Ry. Co., 412 Wisconsin 262, 24 Am. Rep. 399; Sternberger v. Seaton Co., 45 Colorado 401, 102 Pac. 168, (1909); Hutchinson v. Watson. & Co., 16 Idaho 484, 133 Am St. Rep. 125, 101 Pac. 1059, (1909); Western Pacific Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 151 Fed. 376, 30 C.C.A. 606; Steers v. City of Brooklyn, 101 N.Y. 51, 4 N. E. 7; Wiel, supra, footnote 37.
39.
New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 717, 9 L. Ed. 595; Cook v. McClure, 58 N.Y. 437, 17 Am. Rep. 270; Wiel, Water Rights in the Western States, S902, 3d Ed., (1911); 24 Minnesota Law Review 305, (1940).
40.
Haln v. Dawson, 137 No. 581, 590, 36 S. W. 233; Wiel, supra, footnote 37.
41.
26 Texas Law Review 223–226, (1947); 14
Louisiana Law Review 267–273, (1953); 28
Oregon Law Review 385–390, (1949);
15 Louisiana Law Review 463–465, (1955); 10
Rutgers Law Review 738–741, (1956). See also United States v. 11.8 acres of land (1963) and R. A. Beaver et al. v. United States (1965) for the Lower Colorado River situation. See also County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 90 United States (23 Wall) 46, 50–66 (1874) in regard to artificial structures placed in a stream that may cause accretion.
42.
Missouri v. Nebraska, 196 U.S. 23, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155, 49 L. Ed. 372; Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kansas 511, 117 Am. St. Rep. 534, 85 Pac. 763, 6 L.R.A., U.S. 162; Wiel, supra, footnote 37.
43.
Paige v. Rocky Ford Co., 83 Cal. 84, 21 Pac. 1102, 23 Pac. 875; Wooley v. Caldwell, 108 Cal. 85, 49 Am. St. Rep. 64, 41 Pac. 31, 30 L.R.A. 820; York County v. Rollo, 27 Ont. App. 72; Morton v. Oregon Ry. Co. 48 Ont. 444, 120 Am St. Rep. 827, 87 Pac. 151, 7 L.R.A., U.S., 344; Cox v. Barnard, 39 Or. 53, 64 Pac. 860; Wiel, supra, footnote 37.
44.
Kinkead v. Turgeon, 74 Nebr. 573, 104 N.W. 1061; Wiel, supra, footnote 37.
45.
28 USCA S41, 20; Art. V, United States Constitution; United States v. Lynch, 188 U.S. 445–466, 23 S. Ct. 349, 47 L. Ed. 539, (1903); United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 328, 37 S. Ct. 380, 61 L. Ed. 746, (1917).
46.
Tempel v. United States, 248 United States 121, 39 S. Ct. 56, 63 L. Ed. 162, (1918); Sanguinette v. United States, 264 United States 146, 44 S. Ct. 264; 68 L. Ed. 608, (1924).
47.
Jacobs v. United States, 45 F. 2d 34, C. Ct. 5th, (1930).
48.
Cress v. United States, supra. (This involved the taking of riparian lands and water rights by backwater of a navigation dam on the Cumberland and Kentucky Rivers.) See also, United States v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U.S. 645, 656, 5 S. Ct. 306, 28 L. Ed. 846, 850, (1884); United States v. Lynch, supra. (Four dissenting judges advocated overruling the Cress decision in part, on the ground that “it would be incongruous to deny compensation to owners adjacent to navigable rivers and require it for others bordering its tributaries for like injuries caused by the single act of lifting the river’s mean level to the high watermark.”) United States v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co., 339 U.S. 799, 807, 812, 815, (1950).
49.
United States v. Dickison, 331 U.S. 745, 747–748, 67 S. Ct. 1382, 91 L. Ed. 1789, (1947). (District Court decision affirmed.) 4 Cir., 152 F. 2d 865, certiorari 328 U.S. 828, (1945); 28 U.S.C. S41, 40, 28 U.S.C, S4, 20.
50.
United States v. Dickinson, supra, 748.
51.
Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 574, 17 S. Ct. 966, 976, 42 L. Ed. 270, (1897); U.S. v. Dickinson, supra, 750, 751. See also, United States v. Welch, 217 United States 333; United States v. Grizzard, 219 United States (1801) compare Sharp v. United States, 191 United States 141; Campbell v. United States, 266 United States 368. (Congress has recognized damage to be assessed not only for part taken but also “for any injury to the part not taken”) S6 Act July 18. 1918. 40 Stat. 911, 32 U.S.C. S595, 33 USCA S595.
52.
United States v. Dickinson, supra, 751.
53.
United States v. O’Donnell, 303 United States 501, (1938).
54.
Sec. 145, Judicial Code, 28 USCA S250. (The Court reviewed the question of consent based on implied contract or consent based on the 5th Amendment itself. The early cases (United States v. Lynch, supra; Tempel v. United States, supra; and United States v. North American Transport Co., supra) rested jurisdiction under the Tucker Act on a narrow basis of its construction. Recent cases rest this squarely on the 5th Amendment and do not require proof as in a tort claim (foreseeability and intervening cause aspects). The form of the remedy does not qualify the right. Yearsley, et al. v. W. A. Ross Const. Co., 309 U.S. 18, 22, 60 S. Ct. 413,415, 84 L. Ed. 554, (1940).
55.
Cotton Land Co. v. United States, 75 F. Supp. 232, 234–235, 109 C. Cts. 816, (1948).
56.
Report, United States Court of Claims, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States No. 90–54, June 8, 1960; Report of Commissioner March 18, 1959.
57.
“The Problem of Phreatophytes,” by Horton J. S., Symposium of Hannoversch-Münden, Internatl. Science Hydr. Assoc. Publication 48, September, (1959).
58.
See footnote 2.
59.
“Seed Germination and Seedling Establishment of Phreatophyte Species,” by Horton J. S., Mounts F. C., and Kraft J. M., Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment Sta., April, (1960).
60.
Report, Symposium on Phreatophytes, Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee, (1957), p. 20, (Fig. 2).
61.
Johnson, J. W., discussion of “Some Legal Aspects of Sedimentation,” by C. E. Busby, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, HY1, Proc. Paper 3044, Jan., 1962, pp. 149–154.
62.
Summary Statement: Upstream Environmental Effects of Black Canyon Dam and Reservoir, Payette River Watershed, Idaho, by Busby C. E., Consultant to Montour Flood Committee, Mar. 15, 1972.
63.
Montour Flood Problem, Bureau of Reclamation, Feb. 1973. Note: A sedimentation survey of the reservoir has been made by the Bureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Service.
64.
Memorandum Statement on King v. United States in Relation to the Upper Vergigris River Watershed, Kansas by Busby C. E., Consultant to Kahrs, Nelson, Fanning, Hite & Kellogg, Attorneys at Law, Wichita, Kan., Dec. 10, (1970).
65.
United States v. Gerlach Livestock Co., 339 U.S. 725, (1950).
66.
Pashley v. United States 140 Ct. Cl. 535, 156 F. Supp. 737, (1957).
67.
A. T. and Santa Fe Ry.,v. United States 150 Ct. Cl. 339,365, 278 F. 2d. 937, (1960).
68.
Richards v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 225, 282 F. 2d. 90, (1960); rehearing denied 152 Ct. Cl. 266, 285 F. 2d 129, (1961).
69.
Kenite Corp. v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 72. (1962).
70.
North Counties Hydroelectric Co. v. United States 108 Ct. Cl. 470, (1947).
71.
King v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 548–569 (1970), 504 F. 2d. 1138.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Sedimentation Engineering
Pages: 377 - 404
History
Published online: Mar 21, 2013
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.