Title: Georgia Water Law, Use And Control Factors
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002933/00001
 Material Information
Title: Georgia Water Law, Use And Control Factors
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: John L Heim
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collection - Georgia Water Law, Use And Control Factors
General Note: Box 12, Folder 2 ( Water Resources Reports - Various States - 1955 - 1957 ), Item 4
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002933
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text











A .-s L I


~~t ,#L-.
Pfi~
7; 14p' -~











GEORGIA WATER LAW, USE AND CONTROL FACTORS

By JoHN L. HEaM*

Introduction
Wherever inth is situated he must have an adequate water supply,
S roti"'l for his own personalrequirements, but in order to pro-
mote a moreprosperoys existence. As long as water is available in ade
quate amounts as the result of average rainfall, no problem exists. It
is only when water is scarce, when the demand exceeds the supply, that
man begins to look upon water as being a precious commodity and one
to be conserved, for dominant uses only.
Since '190 'tl~ population of the United States has doubled, but
the per apitd use of water has quadrupled because of the increased
induftrih and a rtquural demands upon avagable supplies. "... about
on0 arter orf. u fOatal population is up against actual water shortages
or poor quality of water or both .. The 17 Weste j tes, with
about million people use a daily verge tlons (17
billions '~* tihg arid farmlands alone) as ~agnst 80 billion
galIon in the J Eastern States with their 128nIpion people. In-
dustrial water in tbe Eas-amotts to6-- biij mains, as against 3
billion in the West. Farm irrigation in Ah VP hs taken onl 3
billion gallons, but this use is growmg so fast and its impact on other
useasn Become so heaZ, hat btates--os h Carihna. Georia

water'; peiesr with a view to develop p dew and more adequate
leisla on ,or thss problemm" Frank, WJater, The Yearbook of
A














.- "; *"": :


.' ,;'-. -.:... : .. ,: '". *. -. .'s ," .


r













GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


fines a drought as: ".. any water shortage that adversely affects the
economy or that hurts our pocketbooks." From this rather broad
concept we may turn to a more comprehensive definition that appeared
in Water-Supply Paper 680 in an article entitled Droughts of 1930-34
by J. C. Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt writes: "When in an area that is ordinarily
classed as humid, natural vegetation becomes dessicated or defoliates
unseasonably, and crops fail to mature owing to lack of precipitation
or when precipitation is insufficient to meet the needs of established
human aSctYjiesqin the humid and semi-arid States, serious drought
effects do not result unless the annual precipitation is as low as 85
percent of the mean-that is, an annual deficiency of 15 perceiif or
more." Mr. Thompson in the Georgia Mineral "Newsletter-, Vo. 7,
No. 3, at 103 (Fall 195,4) states that as of September 1 1954 the
moisture deficiency at Atlanta, Georgia was already 25 percent of the
mean annual rainal or er t a ove e gue r oyt
to enote when drou t conditions exist. brought conditions d
eco cross anG a was no exception thir54. Te
crom d n ars. It is
conceivable that a future drought of the same proportions as 1954
could be even more severe economically as population increases pose
an even greater demand on the same water resources. As Mr. Thomp-
son further explains: "There was little economic loss in 19S4 to
low stream in Soutt where there was casiorial
use ofstreams for stock wa er or as waste disposal streams for -
dustries amd ciimui ies. Athough litte economic use was then
ma e o those streams, tL potential use in future years is great. -Sue
a water short rredin 1954 would create a se ious eRo a
loss if the potential development o s ea t n

plarci .;-.morte M ao rerit a, the i. ~ .uatrial d

Geora throdh A r' gripng
to Aarto tf T es to foct a tb water
resources use, .ad cftntraitactrsiciryed i9 0.
vatied dairacteristics a deiaqds plac 'kA ,' t g d ly ol war,.
from alIT u..rces. .. ... -
Mr. Pa i ft-si' -erii-AE, Circulde No. .E6 Department of
Mines, Mitzdii^a tAr. 194) that: ... nLeB now use
a2boui.tlla A pbiLdatis is a mll smwast Com-
gre allto dfo sa aatr pe pulp mlt) 4gla 4 A 3r, i
gallons a day tweed for steam power at ALettg *^. Of


~~~_~_; ~___~ .L














GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL 121
d needs at least .00 gallons of rin r irrigation water to ow
j t.4average farmer's family only needs 100,000 gallons a
year and without running water may use only 30Q1 ILg ns .. ." In
order to more easily ascertain the amount of water tfiat Georgia
industries require on a daily basis, Mr. Payton points up that: "One
cubic foot, per second of water, or 450 gallons per minute, will fill a
gutter a foot wide and three inches el wr rat the speed of an
ordinary walk-three miles an hour. Two fire hse ll tat
amount it ill'supply two inches of irr n waer t acr in
24-fours. It w e ing industrial production:
Kraft paper-20 tons per day
Cantiiapeaches-10,000 cases per day
Explosires-3 tons per day
T o rnl products-9,000 cases per day
Tanned leather-40 tons per day
Meatpacing-120,000 hogs per day
Steam power-3,000 kilowatts
CottonTsheets-20,000 pounds per day
As a further aid in enumerating the factors related to the use and
control of Georgia's water resources, a summary is provided (See
Table 1, following page) that tabulates some general information by
r regions which have similar water features. The regions were defined
and the summary was compiled by the United States Geological Sur-
vey in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Mines, Mining
and Geology.
As noted from the summary the difference between runoff and
< rainTfa is Trough indication of the water consumed by vegetation,
Sevapa artln and percolation into the ground. 1he summary mentions
wells I are common throughout the ate. i he yiel4 faom wells
is genfty adequate for household needs, but in dry years many Wells

crrinny o iaboute eth.. Irn short, .wr arte generally not considered
as be ,e nout to sup1 adequate'7Ir for arrig tion.
riS rm a emenCtsam1 1Wane: mout me -Sate,
are r t1on f
sin x mcoader 8=1 remain
a ter lationfa -daimed their re-
Fs a- p orgia Mneral
NewG.( 1P9 STGeor!s' rivers
carry off about oft-third of the average a nMal rainfall. Most of the
rEmainder, about 17 inches ofiAoff, or an average low of 44,300


C


























GECOR








-~ Average
A~eA






ows Flow-~~
4f Roow
'Uh00
~LIi


S' TABLE 1.

GIA WATER RESOURCES AND USE AND CONTROL FACTORS


Mountain

53- 70
41- 49
26- 41
S16- 28


Valley
Rainfall and Runoff In Inches
49- 68
81- 40
20- 25
5- 16


Upper Coastal Lower Coastal
Piedmont Plain Plain


45- 59
28- 41
14-: 21
7- 12


45-, 52
28, 85
14- 28
5- 20


and Minimum Stream. low in Gallons Per Minute Per Square Mile


660- 830
166- 500
0- 170


460- 100
230- 490
5- 80


460- 920
S160- 670
15- 580


45- 52
26- 86
9- 13
1- 8


800- 480
80- 270
0- 10


Water Use and Control Factrs


; 2 130
18-1100
Steam Panjer
Good, Low-Head
Few, Fair
-Many, Good
SSevere
River, Springs
Streams


8- Si
11- 197
Steam Paper
Food, Textiles
--Good, Large
Many, Good
SMany, Good
Moderate
Rivers, Creeki
Ponds


8- 89
$1- 189
Steam, Clay
Food Chemical
Fair, Low-Head
Few, Fair
Few, Poor
Little
Wells
Wells, Ponds


8- 82
59- 578
Steam, Paper
Food, Chemical
Poor Low-Head
Few, Poor
Many, Poor
Little
Wells
Wells, Ponds















GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


million gallons a day, is our biggest water resource that we can control
for our use." Mr. Thmpson further exLaiu;na t the c~n" cl- tahs
source is necessary because of the erratic way in which nature provides
water elter by food r dri i7t gi e r A llfll,
averag rate.
It must alsobe remembered that not all uses of water are consunp-
tive. :Water used by municipalities for city supplies, waste disposal,
hydroelectric power, recreation and navigation is not used Once but
many tires, Water m ithe Savannah River is used 15 ttIeS whereas
that inmthe CUhttahoochee River i' used t3 times for beneficial pur-
poses. It thus becomes apparent that although large amounts of water
are diverted from many streams within the State by cities and indus-
trial at.erselt is allowed 'to' returti toithe source for"ubelby.~ihers
further down the stream. Howevert during periqpd. qf dryneps or
drought the additional artificial use p water for irrigation pur;pse*
becomes a serious demand on a dwindling source. Irrigation.water is
only used once and is thus a onsumptive use which, #fiie ; ;e lower
stream consumers of the amount of water they formerly enjoyed.
Below is a tabulation of Georgia regional river resources and water
uses in terms of millip n gains per dayin prder to more readily por-
tray the supply and demand features of the problem.

k: jt A RIVER RESOURCES AND WATER USES IN MILLION
GALLONS PER DAY
per. Lower
Cosstal Coastal
Region ] mountain Valley Piedmont Plain Plain
'" 'D R O U G H T
1954 Supply 650 3,600



Urban 1 15 178 1 16
I 90 720 1,850 200
HyicpW a 4a0e2 7,40W 0
a o 0 1 3, 2,5"o 2Mo.
G..& d lkfZeri1; Vol. 7, No. 8 at 01 (A*to .



an t m G a iriai ndirdh-


an are not returned to streamsn. Generally irrigation diver-


I














124 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL
sions in Georgia are negligible, but in severe droughts they may greatly
diminish the flow of small streams." We are thus faced with the broad
problem of inevitable diminishing flow of streams in Georgia during
periods of drought. The specific problem of legal rights to the avail-
able water during such periods becomes our next topic for considera-
tion. As previously stated, wells and springs although abundant
throughout the State are not the major sources of water for artificial
purposes. The mos ;m- t-- rr f the State's water supply is
found in noj-nlible surface streams and rive. T lH -B -
ares ao status o the aw wth regard to the use of this runo
water ,y .iu persona*within the State who require i.

Riparian Proprietorship and Prior Appropriation Doctrines
There are two basic doctrines which govern the use of natural sur-
face watercourses. These are the riparian rights and the prior aro-
priation doctrines. Bot systems are funamentaly divergent in their
appcnatioi l" e use of surface waters. A 1943 summary of the
situation' i ir Western States' pjoinits out: "The Western law of
water rights embraces the common law doctrine of riparian rights
and the statutory doctrine of prior appropriation. The prriniples
underlying these two doctrines are diametrically opposed' to each
other, the former being based on the ownership of lal4 co9tiguous to
a stream, without regard to the time of use or to any actual use at all,
and the latter on the time of use and on actual use without regard to
the 'twnership-of land contiguous to the watercourse." Water Re-
tsources Law, The report of the President's Water Resources Policy
-Commission, Vol. 3 at 155 (1950). On the other hand the
S" do ine of rioprian proprietorship the version wM may ue -the
I l, I water in a team is te owner o e \ ,,, f
V/VA, M. tl tream-. The doctrine ftrther restricts the landowner to eason-

d0 67ueu 0 'nd mdein
SPac. 674 (18). All ow of ribodering upon the
same stream qa ra e ter. 'heirftdiviual rights
are suject to an equal right held by a similarly situated owners to
share equitably in the use of the water and each owner is ent
jh c~i. nal f attow of the tre g ~ o.,
11 .. S (B ed atesv. KJF. ~Dam and Irrigation
rCoI174., 174 UA 690 (1899). It should bie rioted that this riparian right
to the reasonable use of the water-goes with the land and is not gained
by the riparian owner'suse of the w rnuh non-use of it
as itlwould be'andtr prior appropriation if the water was iot used.
___ --- --1I1


r














GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


This riparian right in the water is a right only to the use of the water
and as held by the Supreme Court in United States v. Gerlach Live
Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) : "The riparian system does not per.
mit water to be reduced to possession soas to become property which
may be carried away from the stream for commercial or non-riparian
purposes." That a water right is only a right to use is equally true
under the doctrine, of prior appropriation, Rock Creek Ditch and
Flume Co. v. Miller, 17 p. 2d 1074 (1933).
Up to this point the discussion of rights in surface water has been
limited to individual rights with but reference to the states. It may
be generally stated that the waters ofntr. in r
s-ream bed ae the property of the sta ownerhip however
is subjct.tocertamfi g htS.ot the Itderal government. Whether or 'ot
a stu-am nav, e is a question ot fact in the Umted states. A
ste-a-is eit~o rde-dT be nHi-gab e whte I-it1-sue or susceptible
of being used, in its ordinary condition, as a highway for commerce,
United-4tates v. Oregon, 295 US. 1 (1935). Of equal importance is
the holding in Garden Clb of Virainia v. irginia Public Servc o.
151 S.i5.161 (1930) where the Court reiterated the rule that the
states do not own the waters or. stream beds of non-nFvgabl water-
cQtuases.Jappear-ithat the most importantAtimtteaon extrOlet by
the federal goverhiment over state water, use is that of the commerce
power. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 L. Ed. 23
(1824) said: "The power of Congress comprehends navigation
within the limits of every state in the Union, so far as that navigation
may be, in any manner, connected with commerce a-
tions, or among the several States, or wit the Indian tribes." Other
possible limiraiofls on the rIgns o i me states would bthe federal
propriet6rpoVWro'mder Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Con-
stitution. the war power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and
Article. Ir S ii .9, Clauas 7; and the general welfare cause under
Article I, Sectio6 8, 'CTause 1. I'n addition. to.- tes.a. onsttutional
limitations there is also congressional legislation of a restrictive nature
such as thatallowing states to enter into interstate compacts "... for
the purpose of conserving the forests and- the water supply of the
States." 16 U.S.CS 552 (1911). See Woodbridge. Rihts Of The
States Il tA W Resources Par. cu.ji 4t-As tpliedi'o Water,
5 S.C.L.Q., # .

Water Law In Geor
Present da. water la s f t s c n
law cqn o riparian ts. ary reference to is doctor e was


- ---~















126 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL
made by Mr. Justice Story in his opinion in Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4
Miaoh 397,' 1827); Several years later Mr. Angel in his Treatise
on Thei Compmo Law, 1n Relatibd tp Watercourses, at 34.. (2nd Ed.
18iS3:) recognized that: "Those who own the land bounding upon a
watercourse, ,are denominated by the civilians "riparian proprietors
,.."~.. in commenting. farther on the concept Mr. Aigell added:
"Whve herere are twoobpposite riparian proprietors, e each ons that
portion of the bed of the iiivti which- is ad ringnhiiland unique ad
fiiam q-uax' 'or in other words, to the-threaddr ventral line of the
streaM." .
;i"Theidoarine4 riparian rights is recognized not only by Georgia
wor) i& it limited. to the other inrm iSouthearsarr himi*, Stiarv Z.The
watev ia*;fii the thirty*one MidCWistern, Southern andi astern
tatesmrvik based;onithis comrion law system. With regard to the
rhiirsniing seveatetrWestern States,. Water R sbwrei4'aLsw, at 155,
su pyipoin i^ti fti, ip doctrwiePwretognized invrying
deg eela ii r Sen ofi the. seiteeA Wetfefi Staesibut has~been spe-
cifially. roudiate ain .oigt of .them, the sitiidtionrbeihg less clear in
the vrt1kaining-ti)dp6n tieiotherh Ajid the iapp~doilatiort doctrine is
variously]'recognized i6 all seventeen. r i
I nIi dditionrt the.common law basis of risarian.rieatsin Gaorria
there are twb Georgia statutes in po.m oneio Ps i al
erth -iher g ight d use. ot. wte inad& i-' water-

"The owner of land t rojg w in-naviab legrcourses
ayo s en e aYe eawaaM s e to uss

a riV i% aS ci an .t
-t e la 4
n wn ot op r
.I ri n ,,;t- .


Georgia o de,b9t0, Settion s,54301e dal ; .-. i
'w" .. the

m !y M 9 use or adulterate rW. moitcer er wfi h the enjoyment
o0 it by he next own" -,- I


r














GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


:similar cases presented before the bar of other riparian doctrine states.
Aperusal of thee Georgia decisions shows th.at-ripw -.in rwht.-.fe
,appurtenant nd hic actually tou n te watercourse, or
ll _wh i~t tows, and that a riarian owner or proprietor cann
himseldlawfl itmse.or cevey to another the.rgt to use water flow-
-a og or through s r uon nonriparian lands r an
phsT M jtra om. the lands bormg upon the team, City
o v.rosu v. Hobbs, 121 Ga-, 90), en -x v. Roberts
,Marble Co., 195 Ga. 389,(1932).:A riparian proprietor is the owner
-of iand,b-putndd by a -atercomure loilake, or- through which a stream
Amwsi Frdhb-ua Lfedsilw*tock Gol1d Springer, S&NPac. 102 (1899)
as cited in Sbiner v. Patten, 132 Ga; 178 (1909) .' It iB"not n~iisai
.thratw t~li~tmio L within well defined banit in ocder to
. utd surface channel of a ram to.which ipai. riahta will
am fro;o. W. 'zUwMS! 2i ua. pp.156 556, 557
(1T Fudiupthermnre the identity of a river does flotf.dpend upon
the r lbine of Eiter which may happen to flow dow 'its couirein any

tf thasttatrofi E i roowsetOj oeellw E. Si RoaMoy, Co,
Q.. it. _* fi n rTit" i enttle, to a
r s ,ee the water for o aricultural and mamnfactur-
pomar priced that in m akin such use, -he does not work a
tbt other proprietor en k v. Cook, 4 a. 41
G ilitoar wh my:q nt diutpart ._Q the water
abotke: tfheands oa .i-cent lower riparian proprietor and return
SadCstramylniTeiateePyteis o. v. Cavenders
Creek. GoR ] uRIIr ^ ^ T'Tl Ta. 255 (1903). In accordance with
this eas ,a riarian owner mist detain the water mn longer than is
necessary for'It:pr6itable enjoyment, and he list eirri it tor its
aahgratJai fnrn it, n WW the and o the proprietor below,
CuW 41' .164 kl8GS)L o'Varmin h e
right ti usm the i; e Fo the prejudice df 6ther proipietors, above or
below. He has no, property in the water, but a simple usufruct while
it passes alo rnoa. 66 ,.666 (136).
wvf ,vcrxo.uyr -lroMn. t emrat drannel in
such fi'Xtr as prevent at rom flowing upon.the land of a lower
propria y Mant an njunctol g .prevent the upper
ripaI, W L- .mn-atiura c urse,
Good Wo. a 340 1MO ?).
F or" Wita ? ari V r 9 ithe
use of ii.* r :pr w prs,. If
an up r or e appropra ae more of the water than his















GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


proportionate share and thereby injures the lower proprietor, the
latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages for the injury
thereby inflicted, White v. East Lake Land Co., 96 Ga. 415 (1895).
tho- :-" n ane m.fncih zirm a shall tken as reasonable or
unreasonable .*_ u.est"on tobe detelmid hi t1-ry
par TG1ar facts of the case, inuding among other things, the size and
cnara er o tneramses u o wtc it is subservient, S h-
ern Kallway UO. v. Uagte, 2,F LGa. -App. 7 r 9 '. ii, 41
Ga. 162 (1870). However i order th inwr rin nwnr *
recover d-r as ffr -c nmfnl diverjon bd a er p ropr,,to
=fne co la'mant must show: (I) the extent to which the flow has been
dimihnihpd, 21 *]wnemer or not the dimftnai-n i .8 1 i,-l M_--val;
and (3) whether or not the complainant willbe damage te
dim inshr" aL-;. ll f Propery in Georgia, at r3 1945.
rom the syllabus by the court in the White case, supra, it would seem
bm, eaam Ihan A rarita owansm 2n1. Fhznaams prbpr-
tinate share of he water for, domanktei=s:a3&'Adntihde
to this effect was not to be foiunmiany of the other Ge-orga decisions
examined. The case is also interesting due to retrence madi, b ie
courtF th although the rights of different riparian owners ,hose land
lies along the channel of a watercourse are in all respects equal, this
right to the waterway be qualified by grant or prescriptmiol. ir Sea-
board iAr--; Ra ray Siker 4 Ga. App 7 (1908),the court
recognized thatl nonn-aigable strP ma x My become sublet public
e to
srvitude by long ue t prescriti nt relt ot
adverse use over a twenty year period. This VUodgrant to an apro-
ator o water a rescripv rght aait tla
ir Hs adverse use of the water continue over period.of twenty years.

summary and oondusion to judicial interpretation of cases dealing with
use of water under the riparian doctrine, Mr. al in The Law of
Property, at -6381; *92nd Ed. 1937), the ps"eble -by
statin:..
"No. matter how reasonable or laudable the purposes of the
u sr ay It substantiay and materially Aimiiishes the flow



o'A
be, the the softelwer rar ani owier- are violate because
irmay tr o use te straf inSfth same waor te same
purpose iJIf e n Ive to
the re t. loe streams a xts r iv gust.be maintained for
thebenefit ran o ers, c wou



I"

t















GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


should any one of them be permitted to educe its volume in any

From the above cases it becomes apparent that a riparia/pro-
prietor's rights to water are appurtenant only to lands which actually
touch on a watercourse. He may not lawfully convey to another the
right to use this water. He may not divert the water above an adjacent
lower riparian proprietor and return the water to the stream below
such lands so as to thereby injure the lower proprietor. He may not
detain the water longer than is necessary for its profitable enjoyment
by him. If he does divert or detain the water in an unlawful manner
he may be subject to an injunction and may be liable for damages at
the instance of the injured lower riparian owner, the question to be
determined by a jury upon the particular facts of the case. He has no
property in the water. He merely has a simple usufruct while it passes
along. He is only entitled to his proportionate or reasonable share
and use of the water and this rig1i to the water may be lost by grant
or prescription. However, by implication in one case it appeal s that
possibly a riparian proprietor may use more than his proportionate
share of the water for purely domestic purposes. The cases do not
spell out whether or not an upper riparian proprietor may or n what
egrer t r t e arrnca onsumptive ose o
I we 1111 U ui use is a naura use o water then
even under the holding of the White case, supra, an upper proprietor
would be stopped from using more than his proportionate share for
an artificial use such as irrigation of crops. Con
ance with the prevailing status of the in laPwir thl of the
entire quantity of water that .ows through eorma's. non-navigable
surface watercurses Cron tne overall average runoff fitur of 44,300
million gallons a day is controlled bv rinan rnranrunr f
'reasa W Sand proportion ate share", dct
-Du, pnods of wav u,- no problem under the
ri ara AL l, uAL Vi. 1iM.u Luorr rpply, Unm-r arlan o Urie ors


is ar f laa w,"triteV Woodbndge in H1 artc l e, Ktqts'
o e r sources Particularly as Applied to
Water, $ '.CL.0Q. 18 (1952), "since there is not enough water for
all no one A ti W.,ja tites hat there is-and cursed
be the-oi. ri0bwi& s." Ho*ever for the upper ripara.owner
wl0o uu ,lTl u IUtti hr f~s ireW"iale hbte, Mr. Agnor in his
article, Kiparian Ri~hts In The Southeastern states 5 S.C.L.Q. 146















130 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL
(1952), believes there at least two pen to him. Firs, by
f ) jurchasin an easement to detain an ivet r he stream
i from s a a the watercour wouldd
m pe upper proprietor coW ,c-v-
struct a dam to detain the water and merely wait until a lower riparian
( a ,ner wouldting An actor" gast hu both or Mse
Spropse coursess o action would be effctiv cons r
t .....o.......r. araffl'^ ,Yuiafp e retreence wti whch
lower ri arian owrs wod ant an ement
tle water. That co6uepl jhd withte uncertainty of whether or not a
jj- ,jw t.f ^..,,, to ]e a rea e j akea ctb Ythe
upper proprietor in his effort to obtain a more practical s areote
W iW P l^.4ia ptve use, oes not solve the problern witf
degree of certainty.
on.uso
The popular view among the majority of c q impqrgy writers
appears to e aime at, supplanting or at least a.me.dir existing
riparijan law Wh th. law pr;nr pppri9priation. This doctrine o
first come first serve rests on the proposition that .bpefal use pf
water is ;he basis, measure, and limit of the appropriative ri4h't, Ide v.
Uinted States, 3 VS, 497 (1924) ;that its relationship and exist,
ce tpo49.ier rights on tbe same streaine r identified -~re pf time
p.f imtlajbn 6 fhbe iiigbt h ;bhbeginning the work of water version.
This coupled with the intent to make a beneficial use of it, and the
diligence with which the appropriator completes his water diversion
with actual application to a beneficial use, is in essence the doctrine of
prior ap ro aton drizona v,, Califoria. 298 U.M, 55.8 (1931),
a. a 4 d'n m L
the ncent nn T- I i T* 'rk users a
measure f mono ol of the tre o; th.a t rides o su-



wa nan eo i a a ean
ion jo kpovement t us; the water

i. conc. tour

expaning econ irh j i c e-















GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL


fial use and. conservation. a a eatr-ee Busby,
T RTTTrfI cultre 1955, at 670, 67r19T.
On the other hand these safe- critics offer ai system of prior appro-
priation whereby either an owner of land or one in lawful possesion
1ar rand on which water could be beneficially used may obtain a pert
from rne State allowing him to dIver and se pec a ii mount of
w iter. avelf-til anfd pirce. i apprprtitVt right to the use
of 'te water, g n Mn our Western States out 60 necessity due
to a water shortage' and the expanded artificial ust aof wateki for mining
and irigati~ot purposes, arises only by beneficial uis of the land and
not by reason of ad ownership. Pri6 appropriation is not auefLect
system and it does have limitations in that streams have beco-rwiWer-

and wHer~amovMs^K-VY-"C1 alakei 4ae~rtainftimile
andtee, tadless o-T die a prpasator 's O M"I irfe Tofi 'oer
usersOtne MEl. ......t ti y m.ll Ifsuit in lgs-Mdwas.bof
ivwa-erlu increased costs of tate administration Rn oder to provide
adequate. -emedie-r.------ -- --- -
A7FRtougf~ fdactrine of prior appropriation is inoperation today
in o.a Weiten States and hw been for many yearei the qaetioh 't-
mains as to how the elements of prior apptOp ritiaon can e a o-
rat e ?ttlhb;la- states stceh as Georgia h ich embi'aecthe ipaian
doRMM. 1: V 'opei bMR- o water policy in 'South -arlnaiut -r 954
CMQIM ._.oO.. I~ v.C. Me", te o may .water ti0t4i I'

^S& tiee >u-o t yeted rights ta sttersei IE m other
word guei' ab ladlwtd alow riariaim pji~ ietorl thl, futlre Mste of

time,-- be put -int- effect. All 'iariaiti o *valera Who
.werggm. id um n iafwou3ie~Frw use otfit
ba iilmf iTneh Andmsnt itowjTim f i -NlIli 0rd
MI a-,
sunroaonw iot. to rn drdownto.w the ea .use& .. auch
=Zae..q en -be to Stat'coativalfor-
DiiefsCrT uEs, The. proBlem-f'ot = comljpn ti or" the aflgt o
v ifpifM 1rihts-. athe water also arises. Af ,ro k a he 4dnpiaAn
ofprm- ri I I brr slative enactment, would' bb. of :great


conclude in his worus mar, -it would appear unixkeit .at "t& rine
dof rr gud'be adopted i a astern State y
legislative enactment." Anor, R ia Rights ix The Southeastern
Stores, S/.C.LQ.. 1i, 148 (1952).

















TAXES-A LITTLE PLANNING GOES A LONG WAY

By ABNER M. ISRAEL*

he field of federal tax law is generally d elected by the lawyers. It
was understandable in the early days of the federal income tax
structure when, after the income tax was, made legal by the 16th
amendment, the first of the present series of personal income taxes
was enacted. Then the tax started at one percent on incomes above
$4,000 for married persons, with a $3,000 exemption for single per-
Pons. Thea, only ,7 out every thotwaM persops paid on their
earnings.
Under the federal tax today, with the withholding and pay-as-you-
go methods of collecting a mass tax and a rate that starts at 20 percent
on a net income of $1,000, over 60 million Americans are annually
swept into the tax collectors' nets. In "those god olddays" the prob.
lems of the income tax were mainly bookkeeping and in the field of
the auditor's activity. But today, the federal income tax structure is
an intricate maze, a field of factual and legal complications, in which
the lawyer--if he is informed-is particularly equipped by training
and experience to be of service.
While the field of tax law has not been completely abandoned by
the legal professions, other professional groups, and other non-profes-
sional -pesons, to a large extent, are engaged in applying these laws,
interpreting legal decisions and are being compeasatedfor advisory
services in~tcmattes.' Tax problems constantly raise both legal and
accoatingwproblems and obviously there awe areas wheretht.account-
att, im addition to the preparation %of balance sheets and ta returns,
is absolutely easeestil npd bis skill and judgment headed to!efiieatly
protectthe diant. &, it should be just as obvious that there are other
areas where the problem is entirely or mainly a legal one and the
pcdtal aolliS ia&trtirinrg ateShgX iac eseni id the4tsj*ayit er-
ests 6f the dicat. There is, too, a shadowy field without a clea line
4f demarcation, where either profession may adequately perform.
The prn at'situation, however, seems to be'hewrily Weighted with the
idea that tfetare first, the aceoiatant's domain and only secondarily
tlw*etl of'th.lawyer. ..Many difficu quiestons of tax liability arise
incident -to-.the r ditng work done and the preparation of retmrns--
and they often 'Idetermined there despite the legal matters inherent
therein, A- majer reason for that result is the fact that our brethren "
of S by %ar.m;"1 .
-;,. (4#.2)* ^ r ./a ^ '1 *' *'.


IL I _^I ~ II ;_


V




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs