Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
how has right to own water?
interests from ag, industry, domestic, hydropower, transportation, fisheries, ecological needs
considerations to all users, downstream, etc
uncertainty of resources
code of hammurabi
mesopotamia in 1700s bc
canals, dikes, dams controlled water
irrigaters were responsible for upkeep, and there was punishments
equal rights for upstream and downstream users - eye for an eye
riparian doctrine
defined in justinian code in 533 ad, added to english common law
water in rivers are public good, and land owners had rights to reasonable use of water - early users given priority
state can have conditions for use, but determine conditions
used in modified forms in CA and usa
doctrine of prior appropriation
1848 in california - water was needed on govt land, which was greater than supply
allowed for diversion of water for use on non-riparian land
first come first serve to specific amount of water, seniority gives priority with no regards to others
rights can be sold, leases and moved
water laws in alberta
water is owned by the province
riparian law applies for household uses, or small ag uses
some rights to groundwater w specific rules
most other water uses requires a license (prior appropriation)
govt drought in 2024
had to determine how to divide available water among major users
did not use fitfir, decided to share the shortage
public drought 2024
prioritize the important uses of water first
such as sanitation and household uses, then cities, then ag all the way down the line
major users drought 2024
went along with govt suggestions bc can’t risk public image, loss of license, change in system, political risk of pushing rights
etc
1887 water change
european settlers encountered an intense drought - took water from river, violated riparian/other water rights
charles card from utah introduced irrigation
connections with elwood mead and william pearce who introduced american water laws
western canadian water law
card and pearce wanted to change the doctrine of water rights away from common law riparian
NW irrigation act of 1894 was created
with the foundation that the right to use water was vested in the crown
NW irrigation act
passed w opposition of those who supported riparian law out east
crown can allocated water licences for the right to use and divert a specific amount
estimated stream flow to est amount given
riparian owners could still use water for domestic pruposes with no license
prior allocation in canada
applications for a license have precedence based on date of application
licensee is entitled to the whole of his supply before anyone below him has any claim
usa fitfr
no assumption on how much you could take, no supervision
in canada there was limits and supervision
early licenses
often granted without term and considered perpetual
was no limits to consumptions
but licenses are tied to the land from which they are issued
natural resources transfer agreement
natural resources are transfered to provincial problems
and provinces re enacted the old federal act
prior allocation and new comers
fully allocated basin even when towns are still growing
Canada became an exporter of ag in med hat lethbridge
what to do?
manitoba table of priorities
ordered priorities for the purposes of water use, could buy out use from lower users
1) domestic 2) municipal 3) ag 4) industry 5) irrigation 6) other
but this has literally never been used ever, who is the govt to say who has better use of water than another?
compensation if ones is cancelled and considered not imp
sask water security agency 2005
agency may cancel rights to anyone using water when it is decided in the public interest - super harsh to have the govt deciding what is imp
needed approval of the cabinet for cancellation but this was extremely unlikely to happen
sask compensation
when a license is cancelled, entitled to compensation only for value of structures now veered redundant by a judge
costly, big decision, poorly recieved by farmers
alberta water act
how to acquire rights to an existing allocation - temp assignments or transfer (temp or perm)
need to consider management plans
public review of applicants
assignments
written agreement, no net harm principle, no need for prior approval, intervention is possible
cannot divert more than the original allocation
transfers
only possible where authorized or for a relevant area of province
2001 drought allowed in s sask river for more high value crops etc
volume of water can’t change, no net harm, land must be suitable if for irrigation, use same as historic use
WID and cross iron mills
cross iron purchased water, developers payed for pipeline so transfer was a win win
controversial bc of politics because of land use, not because of water use - forced a review (passed)
but increased traffic, development, cars, etc - environmental impact
