Land Application of Wastewater: Water Rights Issues
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 109, Issue 4
Abstract
Land application of municipal effluents is encouraged by existing federal water quality legislation and regulations as an alternative to conventional surface water discharge of partially treated effluent. However, conversion to the land application approach may impact downstream water users since the associated operations are likely to increase water consumption or change the location of return flows, or both. The legal status of such changes must be evaluated by application of state water law. In the western United States, the doctrine of prior appropriation protects appropriators whose water rights depend on return flows of prior appropriators by restricting changes in the manner in which the prior rights are exercised. In the East, the riparian doctrine sets limits on the amount of water consumption and place of water use. Although there is little direct precedent interpreting the principles of the two doctrines in relation to land application, potential constraints exist. This paper evaluates the significance of these constraints and the possible impact of water law on the adoption of the land application technique.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
A‐B Cattle Company v. United States, 589 P.2d 57 (Colo. 1978).
2.
Atchison v. Peterson, 87 U.S. 507 (1874).
3.
City and County of Denver v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 506 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1972).
4.
Clean Water Act, 33 USCA sec. 1251 et seq. (1978 and Supp. 1982).
5.
Dripps v. Allison's Mines Co., 187 P. 448 (Cal. App. 1919).
6.
Fisk v. City of Hartford, 37 A. 983 (Conn. 1897).
7.
Fisk v. City of Hartford, 40 A. 906 (Conn. 1898).
8.
Hillhouse v. City of Aurora, 316 S.W.2d 883 (Mo. Super. Ct. App. 1958).
9.
“Irrigation,” American Jurisprudence Second, Vol. 45, sec. 7, (1969 and Supp. 1982).
10.
Jewell, W. J., and Seabrook, B. L., “A History of Land Application as a Treatment Alternative,” EPA/9‐79‐012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Apr., 1979.
11.
Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, and Wells Water District v. Main Turnpike Authority, 71 A.2d 520 (Me. 1950).
12.
Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 v. Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Co., 499 P.2d 1190 (Colo. 1972).
13.
Pernell v. City of Henderson, 16 S.E. 2d 449 (N.C. 1941).
14.
Pulaski Irrigating Ditch Co. v. City of Trinidad, 203 P. 681 (Colo. 1922).
15.
Salt River Valley Users' Association v. Kovacovich, 411 P.2d 201 (Ariz. App. 1966).
16.
Smith v. City of Rochester, 44 A. 393 (N.Y. 1883).
17.
Smith v. City of Sedalia, 149 S.W. 597 (Mo. 1912).
18.
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Shelton Farms, Inc., 529 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1975).
19.
State by and through Christopulos v. Husky Oil Co. of Delaware, 575 P.2d 262 (Wy. 1978).
20.
Stewart v. City of Springfield, 165 S.W. 2d 626 (Mo. 1942).
21.
Thayer v. City of Rawlins, 594 P.2d 951 (Wy. 1979).
22.
Trevett v. Prison Association of Virginia, 36 S.E. 373 (Va. 1900).
23.
Utah Code Annotated, sec. 73‐2‐1 (1980).
24.
“Waters,” Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 94, sec. 314 (1956 and Supp. 1982).
25.
Wyoming Hereford Ranch v. Hammond Packing Co., 236 P. 764 (Wy. 1925).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 109 • Issue 4 • October 1983
Pages: 287 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 ASCE.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 1983
Published in print: Oct 1983
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.