Title: Conclusions and Recommendations
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002953/00001
 Material Information
Title: Conclusions and Recommendations
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Florida Water Resources Study Commission
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collection - Conclusions and Recommendations
General Note: Box 12, Folder 3 ( Florida Water Resources Study Commission - Reports of Major Committees - 1956 ), Item 12
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002953
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





Many of the problems created by the common law classifications, and

perpetuated by narrowly conceived statutes, could be solved by legis-

lation clarifying the rights and responsibilities of water owners and

users.
The extent to which such legislation is successful will depend on

the extent to which the lawmakers, and the courts, are uniform in apply-

ing the same fundamental principles to all water, regardless of the

particular physical state it may be in at the moment. Whether the basic

philosophy is one of reasonable use under a riparian rights doctrine,
or guaranteed use under a prior appropriation doctrine, the necessity

for a consistent theory applicable to all "classes" of water is

inescapable.

IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Florida, along with thirty other eastern states, follows the

riparian system of water law, a system emphasizing rights of water use

in common, and limiting utilization of water in surface watercourses to

use by owners of riparian land. The riparian doctrine as developed

in Florida apparently includes a reasonable use limitation as to both

surface and ground water.

In the past, Florida, along with most eastern states, has normally

had an excess of water, so that her problems have been problems of

disposal rather than problems of governing water use. With the tremen-

dous increase in Florida's population, problems of supplemental irriga-

tion, pollution, and salt water intrusion in coastal areas, compounded

by several years of drought, have led to a reexamination of the Florida

system of water law. This reexamination indicates many gaps in the

law, and many unsettled areas in need of clarification. Changes

obviously should be made in the law so that the water resources of
-88-








Florida may be put to the most beneficial use of which they are reason-

ably capable, and so that waste and unreasonable use may be minimized.

The answers to these problems must be sought through the medium of

one of the two fundamental systems of water law. One possible approach

is through the appropriationn system of water law adherred to by 17

western states. A second approach would be to preserve in so far as

possible, the existing riparian system as developed by present statutes

and case law, but with such modifications as may be necessary to maxi-

mize the beneficial use of this important resource.

A number of eastern states in the past five years have considered

adopting the prior appropriation system. Legislation has been proposed

in South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan,
483
Wisconsin, and Georgia. Mississippi recently adopted the appropria-

tion system;484 Virginia considered and rejected it.485

One of the principle advantages claimed for the appropriation system

is that under it users of water are more certain of their rights than

under the riparian system, since the appropriation doctrine includes

establishment of priorities for use of water in time of shortage. It

is argued that as a result the appropriation system removes the insecurity

involved in the riparian system, and tends to protect and encourage
486
investments in development and use of water.4 This illusion of cer-

tainty is not borne out in the operation of the appropriation system in

the west, was recently pointed out by the chief of the Irrigation
487
Operations Branch of the United States Bureau of Reclamation.

In addition, it has been claimed that the appropriative system leads

to the most beneficial use of water by placing primary emphasis on

encouraging the sound development, wise use, conservation and protection

of water.488 But western experience indicates that in many cases the


-89-


1









effect of prior appropriation is to waste water which otherwise could

be put to beneficial use. The earliest settlement of western valleys

frequently occurred in downstream areas, with the result that senior

appropriations are located in these areas. The streams supplying these

areas often pass through arid regions where high temperatures and

parched soil exact a heavy toll in evaporation and seepage losses. Thus,

to satisfy a senior appropriator at the mouth of the stream, junior

upstream appropriators may have to let several times the amount of the

appropriation pass by them to allow for these channel losses.4 In
addition, once an appropriator has begun using a certain amount of

water, he will frequently continue to use that amount although he may

be actually using considerably more water than he really needs, since

failure to continue utilizing this amount may result in loss of his

appropriative right to the excess. In such cases, the system encourages

waste, and discourages use of new irrigation techniques requiring less
490
water.

An additional criticism of the appropriation system is its tendency

to freeze the initial pattern of water allocation. The appropriation of

entire stream supplies for irrigation in a number of western states has

prevented industrial development which could produce far more wealth

for the state per unit of water used than does the highly consumptive

use of water for irrigation. This is especially true in arid areas.

As one authority has put it "unless some adjustments are worked out in

western law, western states will seriously restrict their own economic
492
and industrial growth."

These comments on the appropriation system should not be taken to

mean that there is nothing of value in that system or that there are no

lessons that the east can learn from western appropriation developments.


-90-









What it does indicate, is that the appropriation system is not the panacea

for eastern problems that some appropriationists suggest. The water

use problems of the west are still tremendous, as they are bound to

be in any area where the water shortage is as critical as it is in some

of our arid western states. The water use problems of the east will

likewise increase in number and importance as population growth and

new uses for water build up more pressure for allocation of the avail-

able supply. But the solution for the east is not necessarily the

drastic legal change from the riparian system to the system of prior

appropriation. The very fact that the change would be such a drastic

one would create political as well as legal difficulties in obtaining

passage of such legislation. This is undoubtedly one of the factors

that has caused the appropriation bills to fail or be withdrawn in

North and South Carolina and Michigan.

A factor which would militate against a change to prior appropriation

in Florida is that Florida, like a number of other eastern states,

seemingly regards riparian rights as property rights even though such

rights are not being actually used at the moment.4 Traditional

recognition of these rights gives riparian lands in Florida a value

which they would not possess in an appropriation jurisdiction. A

change to an appropriation system, under which all water is necessarily

owned by the state in its sovereign capacity, would destroy the additional

investment of riparian purchasers represented by such rights. Such

a destruction attempted without compensation for each riparian owner

might well be held to constitute a taking of private property without

just compensation, and violative of both the Florida and the United

States Constitutions.494 Under certain circumstances change to prior

appropriation possibly might be justified as an exercise of the police

power of the state if such regulation could be shown to be necessary
-91-


~--111~---^----__----)11~___11_~~









for the public welfare. It seems extremely doubtful that such a change

in the law would be held constitutional in Florida, where in most areas

basic supply far exceeds the demands now being made upon it.4

Moreover, the "property rights" statements by the Florida Court
that
suggest additional hurdles/would face an attempt to change to appropria-

tion in Florida. The seriousness of these difficulties has been pointed

out in a number of recent studies.496

The working solution in the west has been to make more of the

supply available at the time and place where it is needed. As one

western authority has put it:

"We know that the unrestricted use of the doctrine of prior
appropriation has led us into trouble...the answer is to,
by new institutions and new developments, bring in supple-
mental water. Sometimes we can do it simply by storage,
equate the flow, not really equate it so that it flows
throughout the year evenly, but hold back water so that
it may be delivered in the periods of time when it is
needed. The law of prior appropriation, with the irriga-
tion district added on to it, and these new engineering
developments, is gradually approaching then a system of
equal rights and a common supply...you might have an
organization with taxing and bonding power to equate the
flow, to take that winter storage...and use it when it is
needed in the summer months. Maybe that is the eastern
solution, and a study might very well be made then, not
necessarily further study of appropriation law, but of
appropriation institutions, the institutions that have been
developed in the west to solve their problems....

Districts for water management are not necessarily appropriation

institutions. The disposal of excess water through the use of such

districts is a practice of long standing in Florida. Their employment

for the better management of water is a presently evolving concept,

and a concept Which can be developed and is being developed within the

riparian system itself.

The major problems in Florida as we see them could be resolved by

these steps. First, insure that legal authorization exists for the


~11~-~_1~--------__I









capture, storage, and use of water in excess of reasonable uses; second,

authorize the diversion of such water beyond riparian or overlying land;

and third provide means of restricting unreasonable withdrawals of

water in areas where such withdrawals exceed or threaten to exceed the

natural replenishment of such waters, or where such withdrawals render

' the waters unfit for use by reason of salt water intrusion or other

causes. The realization of these steps is not necessarily through a

change to prior appropriation. Legislative provisions for the first

two steps, operating within the riparian system have already been
498 499 500 501
enacted in Wisconsin98 Minnesota,4 Ncrth Carolina,500 Kentucky,501
502
and Virginia.5 In all of these jurisdiction statutes authorize the

storage and diversion of surplus water. Some of the statutes have been
503
narrowly conceived, and permit use of this water only on riparian land,

Limitations of this sort have been made less restrictive in some cases
504
by liberal construction of the term "riparian land,"

The problem of controlling excessive diversions of surface and

underground water-the third step-has likewise been the subject of

eastern legislation.505 A New Jersey statute provides that the Division

of Water Policy and Supply of the State Department of Conservation may

delineate areas of the state where diversion of subsurface waters

threatens to exceed the natural replenishment of such waters.506 In

such critical areas permits from the Division must be obtained for

withdrawals for a over a minimum amount allowed to take care of domestic

uses. The Division can refuse such permits if necessary to conserve
507
the water in the area.

Assuming a decision to work within the riparian system of law, and

to preserve, in so far as possible, the existing rights of water users

in Florida as developed by our present statutes and case law, there

-93-


_1_11 ~









are a number of legal problem areas, which could be improved by a set

of legal definitions clearly defining the meaning of certain terms in

Florida, especially in areas where the law in other states is in con-

flict and Florida has not yet taken a position. Among the terms in
508
need of clarification are watercourses,508 (a satisfactory definition

should include the extent to which underflow and flood waters are
509
included within the usable waters of the watercourse); riparian land,509

(the definition should be expanded to cover the depth of riparian land);
510 .511
flood waters, navigability, (there is a conflict between the

Federal definition and the definition of navigability established by
512
our state courts); lakes,1 (the extent to which artificial lakes are

included needs clarification); diffused surface water,513 underground

streams,514 (the definition should probably limit the recognition of

such streams as much as possible); and percolating waters.515 Adequate

definitions of these terms would greatly aid in clarifying existing

water law, and in definitizing the rights of the people of Florida

thereunder.

Other areas where Florida water law is in need of clarification or

modification include the requirement for downstream drainage on surface

watercourses;516 the extent to which rights to use water accrue to
517
riparian owners on watercourses;517 reinforcement of the dictum of the

Florida court that flood water may be appropriated without consent of

the riparian owner and without compensation to him by any person who

can lawfully gain access to a stream, and may be conducted to land not

riparian;5 extension of the mill dam acts to provide authorization
519
of dams for irrigation;519 strengthening of the sanctions for the

enforcement of anti-pollution legislation, including further authoriza-

tion for injunctive enforcement;520 the extent to which man-made

channels in Florida become natural watercourses;521 the responsibilities
-94-


~_~






of landowners for the maintenance of such channels and the right to use water from them;522

the right to withdraw water from lakes, both navigable523 and non-navigable;52 the

applicability of the civil law and common enemy rules of disposal of diffused surface

waters in different areas of Florida;525 the extent to which the natural capacity doctrine
526
is applicable to drainage into natural drains in Florida;26 the extent to which the

reasonable use doctrine is applicable to groundwater, including groundwater used on

the premises of the overlying landowner;527 reconsideration of the statutory prohibition

against severence of riparian rights from riparian land,528 at least insofar as this pro-

hibition may apply to use of water;528 the extent to which prescription is recognized

in connection with use of water in Florida;529 the extent to which eminent domain powers

can be made available for irrigation;532 the extent to which permanent or capital damages

are available as compensation for physically permanent interference with water rights in

Florida.531

In addition, provision should be made for the organization and operation of new

multi-purpose water management districts, and for the broadening of the powers of existing

districts to include the additional water management functions needed as a result of the

recognition of the interrelationships between water in different components of the

hydrologic cycle.532 It would be well to provide machinery, similar to the 1955 special
533
legislation enacted for Leon County, under which Boards of County Commissioners would be

authorized to cooperate in water management projects by using county machinery and expend-

ing county funds where the benefits of the project to the county justified such aid. With-

out such legislation, county commissioners are very restricted as to the aid they can

render, even though a project undertaken by a water management district may be of great

benefit to the county.

Assuming the desirability of attempting to maximize the beneficial use of water

in Florida through authorizing and encouraging the capture of surplus water, and its use

beyond riparian and overlying land, and the necessity for preventing waste and unreasonable

use of water, particularly in areas of critical shortage, the question next arises, what is

the best method of accomplishing these objectives? In the opinion of this committee, a per-

manent administrative agency should be established to administer the water law of the state

-95-


L___








and to assure the fullest utilization of the water resources. The legis-

lative process and the judicial process, which are the alternatives to

the administrative process, are not in a position by themselves to

provide the solution to the complex problems resulting from the tremend-

ously increased demands for water in Florida. The legislature partici-

pates in the program by determining major policy. Meeting as it does
every second year, it does not have the time to handle the mass of

detail, or to provide the scrutiny and consideration necessary to resolve

the shifting and continuing problems. It is appropriate for the legis-

lature to establish the main outline for the new program, and leave to

an administrative agency the task of developing and carrying out the

detailed plans.
The courts are not in a position to investigate and supervise

such a program; they are constitutionally limited to deciding "cases

in controversy." They are not staffed with specialists skilled in

deciding complicated hydrologic problems, and they lack machinery for

iniating proceedings or taking other action in the absence of a moving

party. In addition, litigation in the courts is often slow and expensive,

and the answers are limited to the particular issue under consideration.

Court participation in the program should be based on full and adequate

judicial review of the agency proceedings.

The need for continuity of attention, highly specialized knowledge

in the water resources field, and speedy settlement of water rights

controversial points toward the establishment of an operating agency

with adequate funds and authority and the responsibility for an effective

water management program for the benefit of all the people of the

state.


-96-


__






RECOMMENDATIONS
It is therefore recommended:
1. That a comprehensive water law be established in Florida.

2. That the law preserve insofar as possible the existing rights

of water users in Florida as developed by our present statutes and case

law.

3. That in the law a set of legal definitions be included so as

to clarify existing water law and the rights of our people thereunder.

4. That a permanent Board of Water Resources be established to

administer the comprehensive water law and to assure the fullest utiliza-

tion of the water resources by research, planning and implementation.

Further, that the Board members be selected from the different geo-

graphical sections of the state, and that the Board be instructed to

make periodic recommendations to the Legislature for suitable programs

and legislation based on the Board's findings.

5. That under the general supervision of the Board, means for

regional control of water use in the different major hydrologic areas

of Florida be provided, since problems of water use in this state are

primarily regional and dependent upon factors of precipitation, topo-

graphy, population, and recreational, agricultural, and industrial

development which vary greatly from region to region. Further, that

the Board be empowered, after conducting comprehensive engineering

studies, to divide the state into such regional areas as it may find

to be necessary and advisable, such areas to include such major water-

sheds as sound hydrologic principles dictate.
6. That the Board be authorized to exercise regulatory powers over

the use of water in such regions, only after full public hearings are

held in the region and a determination made that such regulation is

necessary in the general welfare. Further, that such regulatory powers

include but not be limited to the following functions:


-97-








(a) to authorize the capture, storage and use of waters,

including flood waters, in excess of existing reasonable uses;
(b) to authorize the diversion of water beyond riparian or

overlying land; and

(c) to delineate from time to time such areas within the

respective regions where diversion of surface or underground waters

exceeds or threatens to exceed the natural replenishment of such waters

or to render them unfit for use by reason of salt water intrusion or

other causes. Further, that in areas so delineated, permits from the

Board be made a prerequisite for diversions of over a minimum amount

established as reasonable by the Board, which permit may be refused by

the Board on good cause and when necessary for the conservation of the

supply in the best interest of the people of Florida.
7. That statutory authority be provided to permit and encourage

the organization and operation cf new multipurpose water management

districts and to permit and encourage the broadening of the powers of

existing districts to include additional water management functions.

Further, that the Board be given supervisory authority over such multi-

purpose water management districts.

8. That provision be made for appeals to the courts of Florida from

decisions of the Board.

9. That the Board be required to make a continuing study of the

water law of Florida with a view to such recommendations for consolida-

tion and revision of that law as may be necessary to meet the developing

water needs of this state.

10. That a proijram be established by the Board to provide the

public with useful and current information on the activities and find-

ings of the Board and its cooperating agencies.









11. That the Board be authorized to cooperate with federal, state,

and local agencies, and with water use organizations in Florida, when

such cooperation will contribute to the realization of the overall water

policy developed and administered by the Board.





Respectfully submitted,



Winston E. Arnow
Stojan A. Bayitch
Richard H. Hunt
George E. Owen
Robert D. Tylander
Frank E. Maloney, Chairman


~


_____ __I_
t






FOOWOTES


1. E.g., Governor Holland, in 1944, appointed a commission to make an overall study of
Florida's water problems and a bill was prepared by this committee but it failed
enactment; 1945 session, S.B. #190. Many other detailed regional studies have been
made in the past half century, such as the Leon and Duval County studies of 1925
(authorized by Fla. Spec. Acts 1925 c. 11603 and Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11558,
respectively).

2. See Maloney, The Balance of Convenience Doctrine in the Southeastern States.
Particularly as Applied to Water. 5 S. C. L. Q. 159 (1952).

3. Pomeroy, Riparian Rights 14-15 (1887); See Wiel, Fifty Years of Water Law, 50
Harv. L. Rev. 252.254 (1936).

4. Richard H. Hunt, Member of Miami, Florida Bar. See Hunt, Riarian Rihts in Florida.
8 U.Fla. L. Rev. 393 (1955).

5. U. S. Const., Art. 18, cl. 3.

6. 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. 264 (1927).

7. This problem has been reported from Manatee, Marion, Sarasota, and Sumter Counties;
see Florida Waer Resources Study Commtn. Report of County tes Water
Problems (19 p. 51, I.C.2. (anatee County); I. at p. 7, sec. I.C.2. (Broward
County); Florida Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary
Summary of Data on Water Problems (1954), 1 II, A.I., problems 25, 26, 38, 41.

8. See problem 41, supra (Sumter County).

9. See problem 38, supra (Sarasota County), Florida Water Resources Study Commn. Report
of County Committees on Water Problems (156,. 45, 3 I.C.2. Leon County):

10. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Cline 37 Fla. 586, So. 780 (1896) (dictum).

11. Edason v. Denison, 142 Fla. 101, 194 So. 342 (1940); of. Bray v. City of Winter
Garden, 40 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1949).

12. See Callan v. G. B. Cypher Co., 71 Fla. 14, 70 So. 841 (1916) (dictum).

13. Fla. Const.,Art. XVI, 28, discussed infra, p. 37.

14. 40 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1949).

15. See Florida Water Resources Study Comm'n Report of County Committees on Water
Problems (1956), p. 45, I.C.2. (Leon County); Id. at p. 58, I.A.I. (Okaloosa
County); Id. at p. 47, I.A.1. (Levy County). See also Id. at p. 14, I.C.I.
(Columbia County); Florida Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors,
Preliminary ou r Data on Water Problems (1954) I II.A.1., problems 8, 28;
II.C., all problems.


~~--__~--_-__11IICIII~---^-







16. Florida Water Resources Study Comn. Report County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 5, II.A.1. evard County); d. at p. 10, I.A.1. (Charlotte County;
Id. at p. 27, II.A.1. (Flagler County); d. at p. 47, II.A.1. (Levy County); Id,
at p. 58, II.A.1. (Okeechobee County); I. at p. 65, II.A.1. (Pasco County);
Florida Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Sum
of Data on Water Problems (1954) II.A.l., problems 7, 13, 19, 24, 32.

17. In one or two instances, however, attempts were made to define the waters of certain
areas in connection with the protection of fresh water fish. See Fla. Spec. Acts
1925, c. 10397 (defining the waters of Clay County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925 C. 10636
(defining the fresh waters of Hillsborough County). Such definitions are of little
importance to this study.

18. Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal. App. 2d 501, 529, 81 P. 2d 533 (1938); Wiel
Water Riehts 771.

19. Yearsley v. Cater, 149 Wash. 285, 288-289, 270 Pac. 804 (1928).

20. Jones v. Conn. 39 Oreg. 30, 64 Pac. 855, 65 Pac. 1068 (1901).

21. Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kans. 206, 244-245, 80 Pac. 571 (1905).

22. 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643 (1909).

23. Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 400, 50 So. 826 (1909); See Thiesen v. Gulf F & A Ry.,
75 Fla. 28, 78 So. 491 (1918) (statements and holding to the same effect).

24. Martin v. Busch, 93 Fla. 535, 112 So. 274 (1927); Clement v. Watson, 63 Fla. 109,
58 So. 25 (1912); Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666 (1918).

25. South Florida Farms v. Goodno, 84 Fla. 532, 94 So. 672 (1922).

26. See Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502, 50, 113 So. 708 (1927).

27. Minnesota Mills Co. v. St. Paul Water Commissioners, 168 U. S. 349 (1897); Shively
v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1893); See also Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371 (1890); Fox
River Paper Co. v. Railroad Comtr, 274 U. S. 651 (1926); Appleby v. New York, 271
U. S. 364 (1925). But see Apalachicola Land and Development Co. v. Mc Rae, 86 Fla.
393, 98 So. 505 (1923) (possible exceptions re Spanish Land Grants).

28. Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U. S. (3 How.) 212 (1819); see State ex rel. Ellis v. Gerbing,
56 Fla. 603, 610, 47 So. 353 (1908).

29. Fla. Gen. Laws c. 791, I 2 (1856), (now incorporated in Fla. Stat. c. 271 (1955).

30. Fla. Laws 1921, c. 8537, now incorporated in Fla. Stat. c. 271 (1955).

31. Duval Engineering and Contracting Co. v. Sales, 77 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1954).


i _I~







32. See Marshall v. Hartman, 104 Fla. 143, 139 So. 441 (1939).

33. 104 Fla. 143, 139 So. 441 (1939).

34. Hunt, Riarian Rihts in Florida 8 U. of Fla. L. Rev. 400. It was stated in this
article that ". he who hesitates to bulkhead and fill toward the channel may lose
his legislative permit at any time the state decides to devote the offshore shallows
to some public use, leaving the upland owner with only his ancient rights of access,
view, and use."

35. Florida v. Black River Phosphate Co., 32 Fla. 82, 13 So. 640 (1893).

36. E.g, The City of Eustis is given all of the submerged land within its corporate
limits by Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11479.

37. Florida Asstn of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Suma o Data
on Water Problems, (1954), II.A.1., problem 21.

38. Mc Kee v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 125 N. Y. 353, 26 N. E. 305 (1891); Conner v.
Woodfill, 126 Ind. 85, 25 N. E. 876 (1890); Maris v. Manhattan Real Estate Ass'n, 89
N. Y. 498 (1882); Lawson v. Price, 45 Md. 123 (1876).

39. See discussion in Marquis, Freeman and Heath, The Movement for New Water Rights Laws
in the Tennessee Valley States. 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 797, at 807.

40. Fla. Laws 1903, c. 5198; now Fla. Stat. 361.02 (1955).

41. See Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 9 (1885); see also Oury v. Goodwin, 3 Ariz.
255, 26 Pac. 376 (1891); Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532 (1866). There is also
special legislation in Florida. E.g. Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10364.

42. Florida Power Co. v. Cason, 79 Fla. 619, 84 So. 921 (1920).

43. Florida Water Resources Study Comn, Reort of County Committees on Water Probems
(1956), p. 83, II.A.l. (Walton County); Florida Ass'n of Soil Conservation District
Supervisors, Preliminary Summary of Data on Water Problems (1954), II.A.l., problems
16, 22, 35, 42.

44. Florida Ass'n of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Survey Data
on Water Problems (1954), II.A.l., problem 36.

45. Id. problem 23.

46. L. R. 3 H. L. 330 (1868); see Restatement Torts I 850 (1938).

47. City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls, 113 Minn. 33, 128 N. W. 817 (1910);
King v. Miles City Irrigation Ditch Co., 16 Mont. 463, 41 Pac. 431 (1895); cf. Ague
v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 5 Fla. Supp. 133 (1953).







48. Florida Power Co. v. Cason, 79 Fla. 619, 626, 84 So. 921, 923 (1920).


49. Nichols v. Mausland, L. R. 2 Ex. Div. 1 (1876); Bratton v. Ruderrick, 283 Mass. 556,
186 N. E. 669 (1933).

50. Florida Water Resources Study Comsan. Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956),p. 41, I.A.2. (Jackson County); Florida Ass'n. of Soil Conservation District
Supervisors, Preliminary Sumary o Data o Water Problems (1954), II.A.l., problems
9, 10, 44.

51. Florida Ass'n Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Suma of Data on
Water Problems (1954), II.A.1., problems 16, 18.

52. Florida Water Resources Study Commn. Report of County Committees Water Problems
(1956), p. 1, II.A.4. (Alachua County); .Id- -15, II.A.4. (Columba County).

53. Id. p. 80, II.A.4. (Union County); Id. p. 29, II.A.4. (Gilchrist County).

54. Id. p. 80, II.A.4. (Union County); Id. p. 83, II.A.4. (Walton County); Id. p. 78,
II.A.4. (Suwannee County).

55. Tampa Waterworks v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 595, 20 So. 780 (1896). The court said, "The
right to the benefit and advantage of the water flowing past one owners land is sub-
ject to the similar rights of all proprietors on the banks of the stream to the
reasonable enjoyment of a natural bounty, and it is therefore only for an unauthorized
and unreasonable use of a common benefit that any one has just cause to complain."

56. Paley Commission, Resources for Freedom. Vol. 5, p. 86 (1952) states "Except for the
Pacific Northwest, most of the economically available water of the Western States is
allocated for irrigation and is not now available for large industrial requirements
without costly acquisition of farm rights and properties The West has gotten
only a small percentage of existing industries, and may get an even smaller propor-
tion of future expansion unless large quantities of cheap water can be made available
for manufacturing and other industrial uses . the West must soon decide whether
its future must be sacrificed by its antiquated priorities system of water use."

57. 289 U. S. 334, 337, 338 (1933).

58. Lakeland v. Harris, 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470 (1940). (The Court in this case did
order the municipality to take all feasible measures to cut down the amount of pollu-
tion); Gibson v. City of Tampa, 114 Fla. 619, 154 Sp. 842 (1934) (injunction refused
against dumping raw sewage in Tampa Bay).

59. Cal. Const., Art. XVI, 3; see Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. 2d 351, 366, 40 P. 2d 486,
495 (1935). This rule of reasonable use is modified to the extent that California
continues to recognize the right of prior appropriation as applied to waters of streams
in the public domain, a right established by legislation in 1872. In addition, excess


111







flow in watercourses above the quantities to which riparian and other lawful rights
attach have been held to be public waters of the state and hence subject to its con-
trol and regulation. Meridian v. San Francisco, 13 Cal. 2d 424, 90 P. 2d 537 (1939).
See 3 Report of the President's Water Resources Policy Commissiono Water Resources
Law (1950), note 70 at 715-721.

60. Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. 2d 351, 375, 40 P. 2d 486, 495 (1935). See Wiel, Fifty
ears of Water Law, 50 Harv, L. Rev. 252, 279 (1936), Theories of Water Law. Harv.
Raev=. 530, 536, 540 (1914).

61. Peabody v. Vallejo, supra note 93; Collier v. Merced Irr. Dist. 213 Cal. 554, 2 P.
2d 790 (1931).

62. 94 Fla, 502, 113 So. 708 (1927). (Dictum based on a California case.)

63. Legislative Research Commission, Water Rihts Law in Kentucky (1956), p. 75.

64. 58 Stat. 887, 890 (1944), 33 U. S. C. 708 (1947), 6.

65. Florida Water Resources Stdy Coammn. Report of g4o Coamittees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 28, I .A.4. (aden County); Florida Assin of Soil conservation district
Supervisors, Predia Ipa dY of Data on Water Problems (1954), II.A.4., Prob-
lems 1, 2, 4,5, 1S 19 (agri ltural-domestic); X., Problem 4 (agricultural-
municipal); Id., problem 11 (domestic-manufacturing); Id., problem 14 (manufacturing-
recreational).

66. Fla. Stat. H 162.01, 162.07, 162.45, 180.02, 180.06-.07, 180.22 (1953).

67. Ken. Rev. Stat. 262.690(3)(1955). This is a section of the Kentucky Water Con-
servation Law of 1954.

68. Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459 (1878); Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188 (1897); accord
Leitch v. Chicago, 41 F. 2d 728 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 282 U. S. 891 (1930).

69. 25 Fla. 1, 6 So. 160 (1889).

70. Tarpon Springs v. Smith, 81 Fla. 479, 498, 88 So. 613, 619 (1921) (dictum).

71. Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 50 So. 826 (1909).

72. Bucki v. Cone, 25 Fla. 1, 6 So. 160 (1889).

73. State ex rel. ELlis v. Gerbing, 56 Fla. 603, 47 So. 353 (1908).

74. Lord v. Curry, 71 Fla. 68, 71 So. 21 (1916).

75. Clement v. Watson, 63 Fla. 109, 58 So. 25 (1912).








76. Op. Attty Gen. Fla. 055-157.

77. Ass'n, 57 Fla. 339, 48 So. 643 (1909).

78. Geiger v. Filor, 8 Fla. 325 (1859) (dictum); cf. Brickell v. Fort Lauderdale, 75
Fla. 622, 78 So. 681 (1919).

79. Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 50 So. 826 (1909).

80. Fla. Stat. c. 271 (1955). See page 23, supra.

81. Panama Ice & Fish Co. v. Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry., 71 Fla. 419, 71 So. 608 (1916).

82. State ex rel Ellis v. Gebring, 56 Fla. 603, 47 So. 353 (1908).

83. Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port District, created by Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31340;
Halifax River Waterways Improvement District, created by Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c.
31339; Tsala Apopka Basin Recreation and Water Conservation Control Authority,
created by Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30653; the Canaveral Port District, created by
Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 28922; the Upper St. Johns Navigational District, created
by Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11431; the Lakes Tohopekaliga--Kissixmee River Naviga-
tional District, created by Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10956.

84. See, e.g., James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 (1937); Ashwander v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288 (1936); United States v. Arizona, 295
U. S. 174 (1935); United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1 (1935); United Statea v.
Utah, 283 U. S. 64 (1931); Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U. S. 65 (1926); Barney
v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324 (1878).

85. U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3, gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

86. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 70 U. S. (3 Wall.) 713, 724-5 (1865).

87. Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459 (1878); Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188 (1897); accord
Leitch v. Chicago, 41 F. 2d 728 (7th Cir.) cert. denied 282 U. S. 891 (1930).

88. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 70 U. S. (3 Wall.) 713, 724-5 (1865).

89. Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 456 (1931).

90. The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.) 557 (1870).

91. Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, 147 F. 2d 743, 747
(7th Cir. 1945); cert. den., 325 U. S. 880 (1945) (dictum); St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Commissioners, 168 U. S. 349 (1897); the Montello, 87
U. S. (20 Wall.) 430 (1874) (dictum).








92. United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. 311 U. S. 377, 416-7 (1940)(dictum).

93. Id. at 407.

94. United States v. Rio Grands Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690 (1899).

95. Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 U. S. 508 (1941).

96. Declaration of Policy, 1936 Flood Control Act, 49 Stat. 1570.

97. Section 1, 58 Stat. 887 (1944).

98. Id., B 6.

99. The following navigation projects were authorized for Florida as of Nov. 1, 1950;
Anclote River, Apalachicola Bay, Apalachicola River, Blackwater River, Canaveral
Harbor, Carrabelle Harbor, Cedar Keys Harbor, Charlotte Harbor, Chipola River,
Choctawhatchee River, Courtenay Channel, Crystal River, East Pass Channel, Eau Gallie
Harbor, Escambia and Conecuh Rivers, Fernandina Harbor, Ft. Pierce Harbor, Holmes
River, Homosassa River, Horseshoe Cove, Hudson River, several intercoastal waterway
projects (e.g. Atlantic, Jacksonville to Miami, Miami to Key West, Cross Fla. Barge
Canal, Caloosahatchee R. to Anclote R., Mobile to St. Marks R.), Jacksonville Harbor,
Key West Harbor, Kissimmee River, LaGrange Bayou (Choctawhatchee Bay), Lake Crescent
& Dunnts Creek, Little Manatee River, Manatee River, Melbourne Harbor, Miami Harbor,
Naples to Big Marco Pass, New River, Ochlockonee River, Okeechobee Waterway, Oklawaha
River, Orange River, Ozona Channel, Palm Beach Harbor, Palm Beach Side Channel &
Basin, Panama City Harbor, Pensacola Harbor, Pithlachasotee River, Port Everglades
Harbor, Port St. Joe Harbor, St. Augustine Harbor, St. Johns River (Jacksonville to
Lake Harney), St. Lucie Inlet, St. Marks River, St. Mary's River, St. Petersburg
Harbor, Steinhatchee River, Suwannee River, Tampa Harbor, Withlacoochee River. See
Division of Water Survey & Research, Development of the Water Resources of Florida
(1951-1952).

Since this list was compiled, a later compilation of such projects has been made.
See Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Development in Florida (1955).

100. Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 U. S. 508 (1941).

101. Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act 1, 49 Stat. 1148 (1936), 16 U. S. C.
590g(a) (1952).

102. 68 Stat. 666 (1954), 16 U. S. C. II 1001 et sea. 33 U. S. C. 701b.

103. U. S. Const., Art. I, 10, "No state shall, without the consent of the Congress...
enter into any agreement or compact with another state...." Congress has given
blanket consent to the states to negotiate compacts for the control of pollution,
62 Stat. 1155, 1156 (1946), 33 U. S. C. 466a (c) (Supp. 1952). See Watson, Ohio
River Compact and Other Interstate Agreements, 41 1. Am. Water Works Aasn 18 (1949).








In Hinderlider v. LaPlatte River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 106 (1938),
the Court points out that Congress had as of 1938 consented to 15 compacts for
apportionment of waters in interstate streams. See also 3 Report of the President's
Water Resources Policy Commission Water Resources Law 64-70(1950)

104. Kansas v. Colorado, 320 U. S. 383 (1943); Wyoming v. Colorado, 298 U. S. 573 (1936)
(by implication); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336 (1931); Connecticut v.
Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660 (1931); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 (1907); Kansas
v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125 (1902) (by implication).

105. Such construction is authorized by Fla. Stat. I 361.02 (1955). See page supra.

106. 1890 River and Harbor Act 10, 26 Stat. 426, 454; 1899 River and Harbor Act, 30
Stat. 1121, 1151, 33 U. S. C. 403 (1952).

107. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31182 (Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control
Authority).

108. Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 99 F. 2d 902 (9th
Cir. 1938).

109. Ibid.

110. United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312 U. S. 592, 597 (1941); see
also Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 229 U. S. 82 (1913); Greenleaf Johnson
Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251 (1915); Willink v. United States, 240 U. S.
572, 580 (1916).

111. Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 229 U. S. 82 (1913).

112. 62 Stat. 941 (1948), 28 U. S. C. 1497 (1952).

113. United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316 (1917). See also United States v. Kansas City
Life Insurance Co., 339 U. S. 799 (1950). This doctrine has been strictly limited
to non-navigable streams, see United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312
U. S. 592 (1941); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U. S. 499 (1945).

114. U. S. Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2.

115. See 3 President's Water Resources Policy Commission, Water Resources Law, pp. 33-52.
(hereinafter cited by title only).

116. 30 Stat. 36 (1897), 16 U. S. C. 481. In regard to the permits, see 26 Ops. Att'y
Gen. 421 (1907).

117. See United Enterprises v. Dubey, 128 F. 2d 843 (1942); Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. v.
Brevard County, 159 Fla. 311, 31 So. 2d 483 (1947); Hill v. State ex re. Watson,
155 Fla. 245, 19 So. 2d 857 (1944). See also Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U. S. 69
(1941); Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S, 52 (1915).








118. U. S. Const., Art. I, I 8, cl. 1. See United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1935).
See also Patterson v. Taylor, 51 Fla. 275, 40 So. 493 (1906) (general welfare power
of a city).

119. See e.g. Florida Water Resources Study Commission, Report of County Comnmttees on
Water Problems (1956), P. 3 II.A.l. (Bay County); P. 12 5 II.C.1. (Clay County);
P. 14 3 II.A.l. (Columbia County); P. 21 II.A.1. (DeSoto County); P. 23 II.A.1.
(Duval County); P. 30 II.C.2. (Clay County); P. 32 i II.C.2. (Hardee County);
P. 38 I II.A.1. (Holmes County); P. 44 S II.C.1. (Lee County); P. 65 II.A.1.
(Pasco County); P. 80 II.C.2. (Union County).

120. 62 Stat. 1171, 1176 (1948); originally authorized by 46 Stat. 918, 925, as amended.

121. Now Fla. Stat. 378.01-.51 (1955).

122. Fla. Stat. 378.16 (1955).

123. A parallel problem involving flooding by State Park authorities was uncovered by
the 1956 county hearings. See Florida Water Resources Study Commission, Reort of
County Committees on Water Problems (1956), P. 51 1 II.A.2. (anatee County).

124. Ibid.

125.


126. Cf. Causby v. United States, 328 U. S. 256 (1946).

127. Fla. Stat. c. 298 (1955).

128. Fla. Stat. s 298.30 (1955).

129. Fla. Stat. c. 157 (1955).

130. Fla Stat. c.156 (1955).

131. Fla. Stat. 156.06 (1955).

132. Fla. Ccnst., Art. XVI, I 28

133. Florida Ass'n of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminar Summary of Data
on Water Problems (1954), I II.C.2., problem 11.

134. Fla. Stat. cc. 388-90 (1955).

135. Fla. Stat. s 388.15 (1955).

136. Fla. Stat. cc 389-90 (1955).








137. Authorized by Fla. Stat. c. 158 (1955).

138. A good example of such erosion was presented in the 1956 county hearings. See
Florida Water Resources Study Comission Report of County Comittee on Water Prob-
lems (1956), P. 12, M II.C.1. (Charlotte County).

139. Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11644 (North LaBelle Drainage Dist., Glades County); Fla.
Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11555 (Felomere Drainage Dist., Indian River County); Fla. Spec.
Acts 1925, c. 11539 (Istokpoga Sub-Drainage Dist., Highlands County); Fla. Spec. Acts
1925, c. 11489 (Flager and Volusia Counties Drainage Dist., Flagler and Volusia
Counties); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11443 (Citrus Center Drainage Dist., Citrus
County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11245 (Fenholloway Drainage Dist., Taylor County);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11244 (San Pedro Drainage Dist., Taylor County); Fla. Spec.
Acts 1925, c. 11243 (Warrior Drainage Dist., Taylor County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925,
c. 11138 (South Shore Drainage Dist., county not given); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c.
11136 (Sugarland Drainage Dist., Glades and Hendry Counties); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925,
c. 10899 (Tampa Gap Drainage Dist., Manatee County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10695
(Indian Prairie Sub-Drainage Dist., Glades and Highlands Counties); Fla. Spec. Acts
1925, c. 10673 (Harney Drainage Dist., Hillsborough County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925,
c. 10672 (Hicpochee Drainage Dist., Hendry and Glades Counties); Fla. Spec. Acts
1925, c. 10383 (New River Drainage Dist., Broward County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925,
c. 10363 (St. Andrews Bay Drainage Taxing Dist., Bay County).

140. Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31340 (Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port Dist., Volusia County);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11791 (Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet Dist., Volusia County);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11693 (St. Lucie Inlet Dist., Palm Beach and St. Lucie
Counties); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11263 (Vero Beach Inlet Dist., Indian River
County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11169 (Sarasota Inlet Dist., Sarasota County).

141. Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31339 (Halifax River Waterways Improvement Dist., Volusia
County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31330 (Authorized creation of special improvement
districts in unincorporated areas of Volusia County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31153
(Cotee River Port Dist. and Authority, Pasco County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29596
(Halifax River Waterways Improvement Dist., Volusia County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1953,
c. 29293 (authorized creation of improvement districts, Monroe County); Fla. Spec.
Acts 1925, c. 11486 (Ocean Shore Improvement Dist., Flagler and Volusia Counties);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10437 (Caloosahatchee Improvement Dist., Glades County).

142. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11128 (Indian River mosquito Control Dist., St. Lucie
County).

143. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31182 (Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control
Authority, Pinellas County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31071 (Windermere Special
Navigable Canal Dist., Orange County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11431 (Upper St.
Johns River Navigation Dist., Brevard and Seminole Counties); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925,
c. 10990 (West Orange Navigation Dist., Orange County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c.
10956 (The Lakes Tohopekaliga--Kissiamee River Navigation Dist., Osceola County).








144. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31011 (Amends c. 21230 Laws of Fla. 1941 conferring
additional powers on Florida Keys Aqueduct Commission); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955 c. 30602
(Grants additional and supplemental powers to any water district in Brevard County
created pursuant to c. 27419 Laws of Fla. 1951); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955 c. 30567
(authorizes Bay County to construct, or acquire, and operate a water system); Fla.
Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29505 (North Beach Water Dist., St. Lucie County); Fla. Spec.
Acts 1953, c. 29301 (Florida Keys Aqueduct Dist., Monroe County); Fla. Spec. Acts
1925, c. 11641 (Monroe Water Supply Dist., Monroe County).

145. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30558 (Authority given Board of County Commissioners
of Alachua County to create sanitary districts within Alachua County); Fla. Spec.
Acts 1953, c. 29587 (various districts, Volusia County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c.
29502 (St. Lucie County Sanitary Dist., St. Lucie County) (includes mosquito control);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29425 (Long Key Sewer Dist., Pinellas County); Fla. Spec.
Acts 1953, c. 29064 various districts, Escambia County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c.
29063 (Pen Haven Sanitary Dist., Escambia County).

146. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31189 (Winter Haven Lake Region Boat Course District,
Polk County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30910 (authorizes the Oklawaha Authority of
Lake County to procure, from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, assistance
in carrying out the purposes for which the authority was created c. 29222 Spec. Acts
1953); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955 c. 30653 (Tsala Apopka Basin Recreation and Water Con-
servation Control Authority, Citrus County);Fla Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29594 (Fresh
Water Conservation Board, Volusia County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29222 (Oklawaha
Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority, Lake County).

147. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30927 (authorizes creation of Special Improvement
Service Districts by Board of County Commissioners, upon petition, in unincorporated
areas of Lee County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30631 (authorizes creation of Special
Improvement Service Districts by Board of County Commissioners, upon petition, in
unincorporated areas of Broward County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29423 (Gulf Beach
Service Dist., Pinellas County).

148. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 28935 (Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conserva-
tion Dist., Broward County).

149. 60 Stat. 1080 (1946), 16 U. S. C. 662 (1952).

150. 62 Stat. 1155 (1948), 33 U. S. C. 466a (Supp. III, 1946).

150a. This was specified in House Document No. 643, Rivers and Harbors Act, 62 Stat. 1171,
1176 (1948).

151. The survey indicates 14 problems in 12 counties. See Florida Asstn of Soil Conser-
vation District Supervisors, Preliminary Summary of Data on Water Problems (1954),
II.E.1., problems 1-5; II.E.3., problems 1-8; 8 II.E.3., problems 1-3.


~_








152. Florida Water Resources Study Comimn. Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 1, n II.E.2. (Alachua); M. at p. 4, II.E.1. (Bradford); Id. at p. 9,
II.E.1. (Calhoun); Id. at p. 10, 1 II.E.2.(Charlotte); M. at p. 15, II.E.2.
(Columbia); Id. at p. 21, II.E.1. (DeSoto); Id. at p. 23, II.E.2.(Duval); Id. at
p. 26, II.E.2. (Escambia); Id. at p. 27, II.E.1. (Franklin); Id. at p. 33, I
II.E.I. (Hardee); Id. at p. 35, II.E.1. (Hernando); I. p. 37, 1 II.E.1. (Hills-
borough); Id. at p. 38, II.E.1. (Holmes); Id. at p. 40, II.E.1. (Indian River);
Id. at p. 42, II.E.1. (Jefferson); Id. at p. 46, 1.E.2. (Leon); Id. at p. 49,
I II.E.2. (Madison); Id. at p. 51, II.E.1. (Manatee); Id. at p. 52, II.E.2.
(Manatee); Id. at p. 58, II.E.2. (Okaloosa); Id. at p. 60, II.E.2. (Okeechobee);
Id. at p. 62, II.E.1. (Orange); Id. at p. 63, II.E.1. (Palm Beach); Id. at p. 68,
I II.E.2. (Pinellas); Id. at 71, II.E.2. (Putnam); Id. at p. 74, II.E.1. (Santa
Rosa); Id. at p. 75, I II.E.2. (Santa Rosa); Id. at p. 76, II.E.1. (Seminole); Id.
at p. 77, 9 II.E.2. (Sumter); Id. at p. 78, I II.E.1. (Taylor); Id. at p. 83, II.E1.
(Walton).

153. E.g., florida Water Resources Study Commtn. Report of County Committees on Water
Problems (1956), p. 12, II.E.1 (Clay County) (Municipalities and naval vessels
pollute St. Johns River); Id. at p. 58, II.E.1. (Okalooss County); Id. at p. 73,
II.E.2. (St. Lucie County) ("Lack of sewage disposal facilities at towns along the
river has turned the Indian River into a giant cesspool, rated by the State Board
of Health as a health hazard. ..."); d. at p. 74, II.E.1. (Santa Rosa County);
Id. at p. 76,II.E.2. (Seminole County) (Pollution of a stream has ruined fishing
and swimming and sometimes gives off an offensive odor).

154. Florida Water Resources Study Comm'n, Report of County Committees on Water Problems.
(1956), p. 3, II.E.1. (Bay County); Id. at p. 15, 8 II.E.2. (Columbia County)
(chemical waste); I. at p. 33, II.E.1. (Hardee County); Id. at p. 49, II.E.2.
(Madison County) (Georgia Pulp Mill); Id. at p. 56, II.E.1. (Martin County); Id.
at p. 69, I II.E.1. (Manatee County)(sanitary and laundry wastes); Id. at p. 75,
II.E.2. (Santa Rosa County)(Alabama Paper Mill); I. at p. 83, II.E.2. (Walton
County) (saw mill wastes). Citrus wastes have also been mentioned as a polluting
agent.

155. E.g., Florida Assin of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Sumary
of Data on water Problems (1954), II.E.3., problem 1. Insecticide sprays used by
farmers and grove owners in Charlotte County, some of which were water soluble and
very toxic to humans, drained into the creek. The city had no authority over this
and the city water supply was very much endangered. See also Id., problem 2 (a
lake in Lake County) and problem 3 (drainage canal in Orange County).

156. Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330 (1868).

157. 5 Fla. Supp. 133 (1953).

158. Bragg v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, 36 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1948);
Elrod v. Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 24, 180 So. 378 (1938). Concerning municipal
liability for proprietary functions, see Ide v. City of St. Cloud, 150 Fla. 806,









8 So2d 924 (1942); Barth v. Miami, 146 Fla. 542, 1 So. 2d 574; Williams v. Jackson-
ville, 118 Fla. 671, 160 So. 15 (1935).

159. Ainsworth v. Allen, Kirby 145, 146 (Conn. 1786); Clark. Code Pleading i 56, at 351-352.

160. Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429 (1913). The validity of this
case today may be questioned in the light of the liberality of joinder made possible
under the 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, but the case has not yet been
overruled.

161. Bray v. Winter Garden, 40 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1949).

162. See pages 15-16, supra. fsr an explanation of this doctrine.

163. Lakeland v. State ex rel. Harris, 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470 (1940).

164. See Ferry Pass Inspectors' & Shippers' Ass'n v. White River Inspectors' & Shippers'
Ass'n, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643 (1909).

165. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sagamore Coal Co., 281 Pa. 233, 126 A. 386 (1924); Auger Silk
Dyeing Co. v. East Jersey Water Co., 88 N. J. L. 273, 96 A. 60 (1915); Barrett v.
Mt. Greenwood Cemetery Asstn, 159 Ill. 385, 42 N. E. 891 (1896); f. Shelby v.
Cleveland Mill & Power Co., 155 N. C. 196, 71 S. E. 218 (1911) (statute); Bouquet v.
Hackensack Water Co., 90 N. J. L. 203, 101 A. 379 (1917).

166. E.g. Fla. Stat. 372.85 (1955); Fla. Stat. c. 387 (1955); Fla. Stat. c. 153 (1955);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 29837, 3(J.

167. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31330; Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31238 (prohibits
pollution in St. Lucie County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30631 (prohibits pollution
in Broward County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 11288 (control of fishing in Washington
County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10765 (control of fishing in Lafayette County);
Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10686 (protection of fish in Indian River County); Fla.
Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10664 (protection of fish in Hardee County).

168. Fla. Stat. 372.85 (1955); Special Acts, supra note 154.

169. Fla. Stat. c. 387 (1955), enacted as.Fla. Laws 1913, c. 6443.

170. Fla. Stat. U 387.08 (1955).

170a. Fla. Stat. 381.031(4)(b)(1955)

171. Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 29837; Fla. Stat. c. 153 (1955).

172. Fla. Stat. 153.03(j) (1955).

173. Fla. Stat. c. 533 (1955).






174. Referred to in footnotes as Florida Water Resources Study Comhbn.Report of County
Committees on Water Problems (1956).

175. Fla. Stat. 1533.02, 533.03 (1955).

176. Fla. Stat. 8 62.11, 62.12, 62.14, 823.05 (1955). See Valdez v. State, 123 Fla. 142,
194 So. 388 (1940); National Container Corp. v. State ex rel. Stockton, 138 Fla. 32,
189 So. 4; Gullatt v. State ex rel. Collins, 169 Ga. 538, 150 S. E. 825 (1929);
Chicago Fair Grounds Ass'n v. People, 60 Ill. App. 488 (1895).

176a. Fla. Spec. ActsM 1941, c. 21415.

176b. Fla. Spec. Acts 1947, c. 24952.

176c. U.S. Const. amen. XIV, 1; Fla. Const. decl. of rights, 12.

177. 25 Stat.209 (1888), as amended, 33 U. S. C. 441 e seq. (1952).

178. 62 Stat. 1155, (1948), as amended, 33 U. S. C. 466 (Supp. 1952).

178a. Public Law 660, 84 to Congress, 2nd Session (1956).

179. 62 Stat. 1155, (1948), 33 U. S. C. 466(c)(1952).

180. E.g., 49 Stat.932 (1935)(Conn., N. J., and N. Y.); 52 Stat. 150 (1938)(Red River-
Minn., N.D., and S.D.); 54 Stat.752 (1940)(0hio River--I'., Ind., Ky., N.Y., Ohio.,
Pa., Tenn., Va., and W. Va.;-54 Stat. 7408(1940)(Potomac River-D.C., Md., Pa., Va.,
and W. Va.); 61 Stat. 682 (1947)(onn., Mass., N.Y., R.I., and Vt.).

181. Florida Water Resources Study CommIn Report of County Committees on water Prblems
(1956), p. 46, I II.E.2. (Lean County)(pollution by Georgia industries); a. at p.
49, 5 II.E.2. (Madison County)(pollution by paper mill in Alabama); I. at p. 75
II.E.2. (Santa Rosa County)(pollution by pulp mill in Georgia).

182. 206 U. S. 230.

183. Supra pp. 15-16.

184. Madison v. Ducktown Sulfur, Copper, & Iron Co., 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S. W. 658 (1904).

185. E.g., 50 Stat. 844, 850 (1937) authorizing the California Central Valley Project.

186. 1890 River and Harbor Act I 10, 26 Stat. 426, 454; 1899 River and Harbor Act, 30
Stat.1121, 1151, 33 U. S. C. 403 (1952M. See page 51, supra.

187. iStimson v. Brookline, 197 Mass. 568, 83 N. E. 839 (1908).

188. See Edason v. Denison, 142 Fla. 101, 194 So. 342 (1940).

189. 56 Am. Jur., Waters 155 (1947).







190. Fla. Stat. I 271.09 (1955).

191. See Florida Industrial Comman v. State ex rel. Orange State Oil Co., 155 Fla. 772,
21 So. 2d 599 (1945); Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820
(1937).

192. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10589, 10682.

193. Clement v. Watson, 63 Fla. 109, 58 So. 25 (1912).

194. Op. Attty Gen., Fla. 055-157.

195. Fla. Stat. s 378.01(3) (1955).

196. United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690 (1899).

197. See p. 21 et seq., supra,for discussion of the extent of federal authority over
navigable waters.

198. 49 Stat. 1570 (1936), 33 U. S. C. I 701(h) (1952).

199. 52 Stat. 1215 (1938), 33 U. S. C. 701c-1 (1952).

200. 58 Stat. 887 (1944).

201. 30 Stat. 1121, 1152 (1899), 33 U. S. C. 407 (1952).

202. 62 Stat. 1155 (1948), as amended, 33 U. S. C. 8 466 (1952).

203. Fla. Stat. c. 387 (1955).

204. Fla. Stat. c. 153 (1955).

205. Fla. Stat. 153.03 (10) (1955).

206. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. c. 156 (1955)(drainage of swamps and overflowed lands); Fa.
Stat. c. 157 (1955)(drainage for sanitary or agricultural purposes); Fla. Stat.
167.07 (1955)(municipal construction for public health and welfare); Fla. Stat.
298.57 (1955)(private constructionfor connection with:: public ditches); .
Stat. c. 378 (1955)(Flood control); Fla. Stat. c. 388, 389, 390 (1955)(Mosquito
control).

207. See p. 27 et sea. and footnotes 139-148.

208. Florida Water Resources Study Comn'n. Report of County Committees on Water Problems,
(1956), p. 5, s 1.8.4. (Brevard County); p. 11, S I.B.4. (Citrus County); p. 13, 9
I.B.4.,(Collier County); p. 14, I.B.4. (Columbia County); p. 17, I.B.4. (Dade
County); p. 22, I.B.4. (Dixie County); p. 30, BI I.B.1., I.B.4., II.B.2. (Glades


, I. I- -, -__ -_ -. _- 1-.


~_C~









County); p. 38, I.B.3., I.B.4. (Indian River County); p. 42, I.B.4. (Lafayette
County); p. 47, I I.B.1. (Levy County); p. 54, 56, $S I.B.1., II.B.2. (Martin
County); p. 58, I.B.1. (Okeechobee County); p. 61, I .B.4. (Orange County); p. 65,
I.B.4. (Pasco County); p. 67, I.B.1., I.B.4. (Pinellas County). But see Fla.
Spec. Acts 1955, c. 31071(3).

209. Florida Water Resources Study Comatn, Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 16, I.B.1. (Dade County); p. 50, 9 I.B.1. (Manatee County); p. 83, "
I.B.1. (Washington County).

210. Florida Water Resources Study Com'n. Report of County Co.mittees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 17, I.B.1. (Dade County); p. 28, I.B.2., I.B.3. (Gadsden County);
p. 47, 0 I.B.1. (Levy County); p. 56, I.B.1. (Martin County); p. 77 8 I.B.1.
(Sarasota County); p. 79, I.B.1., I.B.3. (Union County); p. 82, I I.B.3., I.B.4.
(Walton County).

211. Richardson Kellett Co. v. Kline, 70 Fla. 23, 69 So. 203 (1915).

212. Callan v. G. M. Cypher Co., 71 Fla. 14, 70 So. 841 (1916).

213. Belvedere Development Co. v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Dist., 7
Fla., Supp. 48 (1954).

214. 30 Stat. 404 (1898), as amended, 43 U. S. C. 951 (1954).

215. Restatement. Torts 842, comment d (1938).

216. 56 Am ur., Waters I 50 (1947).

217. Restatement. Torts 842, comment a (1939).

218. Triple E Development Co. v. Osceola County, 6 Fla., Supp. 49 (1954).

219. 56 A. _ur., Waters 51 (1947).

220. Ibid.

221. Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1954).

222. Caples v. Taliaferro, 144 Fla. 1, 197 So. 861 (1940).

223. Fla. Spec. Acts 1925, c. 10811.

224. Martin v. Busch, 93 Fla. 535, 574, 112 So. 274, 287 (1927).

225. Broward v. Mabry, 58 3a. 398, 50 So. 826 (1909).


", 1


1 _







226. While i 271.09 appears to be in conflict with 8 271.06 it is felt that the language
of 271.06 does not apply to 271.09. The latter was passed as an independent act
and moved to its present location as a part of the administrative compilation of
the statute books.

227. See Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 17 So. 411 (1895).

228. Fa. Stat. s 271.09 (1955).

229. Webb v. Giddens, 82 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1955).

230. Furnas v. Garnett, 32 Fla. 64, 13 So. 464 (1893).

231. Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502, 113 So. 708 (1927).

232. Florida Water Resources Study Comm'n. Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 1, S. I.D.1., Irrigation (Alachua County); p. 3, II.D.2., General (Bay
County); p. 29, 1 II.D.1., Drainage (Gilchrist County); p. 30, 1 II.D.l., General
(Glades County); p. 35, 1 II.D.1., Drainage (Hernando County); p. 37, II.D.2.,
Municipality Use (Hillsborough County); p. 53, I II.D.l., Drainage, Irrigation
(Marion County); p. 56, 1 II.D.l., Drainage (Martin County); p. 60, I II.D.l., General
(Okeechobee County); p. 77, I.D.l., Irrigation (Suwannee County).

233. Florida Water Resources Study Com'n, Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 1, II.D.1. (Alachua County); p. 5, II.D.1. (Brevard County); p. 10,
I I.D.I. (Charlotte County); p. 31, I.II.D.l. (Gulf County); p. 39, 40, 8 II.D.1.
(Indian River County); p. 41, I II.D.1. (Jefferson County); p. 56, II.D.2. (Martin
County); p. 69, II.D.2. (Polk County); p. 78, II.D.l.(Suwannee County).

234. Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950).

235. a a. s 298.74 (1955).

236. Robertson v. Brooksville and Inverness Railway, 100 Fla. 195, 129 So. 582 (1930).

237. Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502, 113 So. 708 (1927).

238. Fla. Stat. I 388.01 (1955).

239. a. Stat. 388.15 (1955).

240. Fa. Stat. 389.09 (1955).

241. Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666 (1918).

242. Id.

243. Fla. Stat. I 16844, 168.15, 168.16, 168.17, 168.18, 180.06, 180.22 (1955).








244. Triple E. Development Co. v. Osceola County, 6 Fla., Supp. 49 (1954).

245. Am. Jur., Waters 1 60 (1947).

246. Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 50 So. 826 (1909).

247. Fla. Stat. 271.09 (2) (1955).

248. 30 Stat. 11, 36 (1897), 16 U. S. C. 481 (1950).

249. 49 Stat. 163 (1935), 16 U. S. C. 509a, 509b.

250. Op. Attty Gen. Fla. 055-160.

251. Fla. Stat. 387.08 (1955).

252. Florida Water Resources Study CommIn, Report of County Cosmittees on Water Problems
(1956), p. 37, 9 I.D.1., Insecticides for cotton washing into lakes (Holmes County);
p. 74, I.D.1., Poison to control fish (Santa Rosa County).

253. Fla. Stat. I 153.19(2) (1955).

254. Fla. Stat. c. 533 (1955).

255. Fla. Stat. 167.05 (1955).

256. Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666 (1918).

257. Fla. Stat. 165.09.

258. Fa. Stat. s 387.08 (1955).

259. See, e.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30927 (Special improvement service districts,
Lee County); Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30558 (sanitary districts, Alachua County).


I


, I







260. 56 Am.Ju., Waters 65 (1947).

261. This is still a great problem in many areas. See, e.g., Florida Water Resources
Study Comm'n, Report of County Committees on Water Problems (1956), Id. at p. 27,
I.C.2. (Franklin County); Id. at p. 51, 8 I.C.2. (Manatee County); Id. at p. 60,
I.C.2. (Okeechobee County).

262. Supra, footnote 139.

263. See Black and Eidsuess, Industrial Water Supply in Florida, Economic Leaflets, Univ.
of Fla.; Vol. XI, No. 2, Jan. 1952; Industrial Development, Sept. Oct. 1954, p.22,
see also, Gainesville Daily Sun, Sept. 20, 1956, p. 1, col. 8.

264. See page 14, Supra.

265. 56 Am_. J., Waters 5 66 (1947).

266. Babcock v. Red Cattle Co., 6 Fla. Supp. 113 (1953).

267. E.g., Seaboard All Florida Ry. Co. v. Underhill, 105 Fla. 409, 141 So. 306 (1932);
Dade County v. South Dade County Farms, Inc., 133 Fla. 288, 182 So. 858 (1938);
Willis v. Phillips, 147 Fla. 368, 2 So. 2d 732 (1941).

268. Seaboard All Florida Ry. Co. v. Underhill, 105 Fla. 409, 141 So. 306 (1932).

269. Brumley v. Dorner, 78 Fla. 495, 83 So. 912 (1919).

270. E.g., Florida Water Resources Study Conmmn, Report of County Committes on Water
Problem, (1936) Id. at p. 6, 1.A.1i (Broward County); I. at p. 21, I.A.1.
Sot County); Id. at p. 28, 0 1.A.1. (Gadsden County); Id. at p. 32, l1.A.1.
(Hendry County); Id. at p. 46 I.A.1. (Levy County); Id. at p. 50, I I.A.1. (Manatee
County); Id. at p. 69, I1.A.1. (Polk County); Florida Abs'n Soil Conservation
District Supervisors, Preliminary Summary of Data on Water Problems (1954) 8 I.A.l.,
Problems 6, 16, 22, 28, 29, 32, 33, 52.

271. 78 Fla. 495, 83 So. 912 (1919). But see Willis v. Phillips, 147 Fla. 368, 2 So.2d
732 (1941) (Although the court denied the injured landowner equitable relief, the
reported decision indicates that a small amount of self-help would have alleviated
the flooding.)

272. E.g., Florida Water Resources Study Comnmn, Report of County Committes on Water
Problems, (1956), I. at p. 23, 1.A.1. (Duval County); I. at p. 47, Il.A.1.
(Levy County); Id. at p. 61, 1.C.1. (Orange County); Id. at p. 67, 8 1.A.1.
(Pinellas County).

273. Florida Water Resources Study Commln. Report of County Committes on Water Problems,
(1956); Id. at p. 6, 9 I.A.I. (Broward County); I at p. 13, 1I .A.I. (Columbia
County); Id. at p. 20, S I.A.1. (DeSoto County); Id. at p.32, 1.A.1. (Hardee
County); Id. at p. 33, l.A,l. (Hendry County); Id. at p. 37, 8 1.A.I. (Holmes








County); Id. at p. 58, 1.A.1. (Okeechobee County); Id. at p. 82, 1 1.A.1. (Walton
County); Florida Ass'n Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Summary
of Data on Water Problems, (1954), 8 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 21, 53, 60, 61, Problems.

274. Lawrence v. Eastern Air Lines, 81 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1955).

275. Edason v. Denison, 142 Fla. 101, 194 So. 342 (1940).

276. 40 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1949).

277. Callan v. G. M. Cypher Co., 71 Fla. 14, 70 So. 841 (1916).

278. Callan v. G. M. Cypher Co., 71 Fla. 391, 150 So. 598 (1933).

279. Stoer v. Ocala Mfg., Ice & Packing Co., 157 Fla. 4, 24 So.2d 579 (1956); Bray v.
City of Winter Garden, 40 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1949).

280. E.g., Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. 264 (1927); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v.
Hendry, 112 Fla. 391, 150 So. 598 (1933).

281. E.g., Florida Water Resources Study Co2smn Report of County Committees on Water
Problems (1956), p. 3 8 1.A.lBay County); d. at p. 16 8 I.A.I. IDade County);
flora Ass n of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminar S of
Data on Water Problems (1954), 1.B.1., Problems 3, 6, 12.

282. Florida Water Resources Study Conmtn. Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), Id. at p. 45, 1.C.2. (Leon County); I. at p. 6, 1.A.1. (Broward County);
Florida Ass'n Soil Conservation District Supervisors Preliminary Summary of Data
on Water Problems (1954) 9 1.B.2. Problems 1, 2, 3, 4.

283. E.g., Fla. Stat.(1955) cc. 156, 157, 167, 180, 298, 378, 388, 389, and 390.

284. See Fla. Stat. c. 378 (1955), The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District,
for anexa ple of recent legislation creating a large area multi-purpose flood district.

285. Fla. Stat. (1956), cc. 157, 388, 156.

286. See Drainage Legislation, p. 27 supra and section 10, infra.

287. 49 Stat. 163 (1935), 16 U.S.C. 509a, 509b (194); 49 Stat. 1570 (1936), 33 U.S.C.
70 1(1952).

288. Fla. Stat. i 387.01 (1955).

289. 56 Am. ur., Waters 108 (1947).

290. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586 20 So. 780 (1896).

291. Ibid.


C







292. Ibid.

293. Ibid.

294. Fla. Stat. 370.051 (1955)

295. 56 Am. ur., Waters 111 (1947)i

296. 56 Am. jur., Waters 132 (1947).

297. 56 Am. J., Waters 133 (1947).

298. 56 Am. r., Waters 118 (1947).

299. Salt Water Intrusion in Fla. (1953) Fig. 7 and text.

300. Fla. Stat. I 370.051 55 (1955).

301. See Florida Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary
Summary of Data on Water Problems (1954) III. A.1., all problems; III A.2., problem
3; III A.6., problems 4, 5, 7 and 8.

302. See e.g., Florida Water Resources Study Commn, Report of County Committees on Water
Problems (1956), I. at p. 33, 9 III.A.1. (Hardee County); I. at p. 40, S III.A.1.
(Indian River County); Id. at p. 44,, III.A.1. (Lee County); I., at p. 52, 1 III.A.2.
(Manatee County); Id. at p. 76, III.A.l. (Seminole County.

303. Florida Water Resources Study Comnn, Report of County Committees on Water Problems
(1956), Id. at p. 16, III.B.1. (Columbia County); d. at p. 9, III.B.1. (Calhoun
County); Id. at p. 37, III.B.1. (Hillsborough County); Id. at p. 41, III.B.1.
(Jackson County); Id. at p. 50, III.B.1. (Madison County); IdM at p. 53, III.B.1.
(Marion County); Florida Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors,
Preliminary Summary of Data on Water Problems (1954) 1 III.B.1,
problems 1, Z.

304. 56 Am. Jur., Waters 133 (1947).

305. Tampa Waterwords Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 20So. 780 (1896).

306. Koch v. Wick, 87 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1956).

307. Ibid.

308. Cason v. Florida Power Co., 74 Fla. 1, 76 So. 535 (1917).

309. Koch v. Pinellas County, 5 Fla. Supp. 116 (1956).

310. 37 Fla. 586, 20 So. 780 (1896).



i. _______^ __ --








311. 37 Fla. 586 at 605, 608; 20 So. 780 at 785, 786, (1896).


312. 25 Fla. 381, 5 So. 593 (1889).

313. Fla. Stat. c. 387 (1955).

314. Florida Water Resources Study Commtn, Report of County Comittes on Water Problems.
(1956), p. 10, III.C. (Charlotte County); Id. at p. 12, III.C. (Citrus County);
Id. at p. 22, III.C. (DeSoto County); Id. at p. 26, III.C. (Escambia County); Id.
at p. 31, III.C. (Gulf County); Id. at p.35, II.E.1. (Hernando County); Id.at
p. 40, III.C. (Indian River County); Id. at p. 46, IIIC.C. (Leon County); d. at
p. 62, III.A.1. (Orange County); Id. at p. 70, III.C. (Polk County); Id. at p.
72, III.C. (St. Johns County); Id. at p. 73, III.C. (St. Lucie County); Id. at
p. 78, III.C. (Suwannee County); d. at p. 81, III.C. (Volusia County).

315. The need to fill the gap is attested by the 1956 reports of the water problem
inventory, see, e.g., Florida Water Resources Study Comn, Report of County Conittees
on Water Problems, (1956), M. at p. 1, 5 II.E.2. (Alachua County); M. at p. 54,
III.C. (Marion County).

316. For a discussion of such provisions see, supra p. 29 et. sea., POLLUTION OF STREAMS
AND WATERCOURSES.

317. Fla. Stat. 372.85 (1955).

318. Salt Water Intrusion in Florida (1953), Figure 1.

319. Coral Gables v. Crandon, 157 Fla. 71, 25 So.2d 1 (1946).

320. Fla. Laws 1945, c. 22935. The court has indicated that these districts should be
able to exist side by side with drainage districts, Coral Gables v. Crandon, 157
Fla. 71, 2S So.2d, (1946); The act was unsuccessfully challenged, Ibid.

321. See e.g., Florida Water Resources Study Comml'n Report of County Committes on Water
Problems (1956), d. at p. 3, III.A.b. (Bay County); Id. at p. 5, U III.A.6.
Brevard County); Id. at p. 8 III.A.6. (Broward County); d. at p. 10, III.A.6.
(Charlotte County); Id.at pp. 18, 19, II.C.3. (Dade County); I. at p. 27, III.A.6.
(Flagler County); Id. at p. 37, III.A.6. (Hillsborough County); Id. at p. 68,
III.A.6. (Pinellas County).

322. Ground Water Subcommittee of the Fla. Water Resources Study Commln, Preliminary Report
on Groundwater of Florida

See also Black and Eidsness, Industrial Water Supply in Florida, Economic Leaflets,
Univ. of Fla., Vol XI, No. 2, Jan. 1952; Industrial Development, Sept. Oct. 1954,
p. 22. See also Gainesville Daily Sun, Sppt. 20, 1956, p. 1, col. 8.


1~1_~~ I iI I) ____..~__._ _


___ I










323. Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125,77 So. 666 (1918).


324. Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1950).

325. E.g., Martin v. Busch, 93 Fla.535, 112 So. 274 (1927).

326. See Tarpon Springs v. Smith, 81 Fla. 479, 88 So. 613 (1921).

327. See Broward v. Mabry,.58 Fla. 398, 50 So. 826 (1909).

328. U.S. v. Gerlach Livestock Co., 339 U.S. 725,745 (1950).

329. Caples v. Taliaferro, 144 Fla. 1, 197 So. 861 (1940).

330. Fla. Stat. 271.09(1) states: "Riparian rights are those incident to land
bordering upon navigable waters. They are rights of ingress, egress, boating,
bathing and fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law.
Such rights are not of a proprietary nature. They are rights inuring to the
owner of the riparian land but are not owned by him. They are appurtenant to
and are inseparable from the riparian land. The land to which the owner
holds title mast extend to the ordinary high water mark of the navigable water
in order that riparian rights may attach. Conveyance of title to or lease of
the riparian land entitles the grantee to the riparian rights running therewith
whether or not mentioned in the deed or lease of the upland."

331. Ferry Pass Inspectorst & Shippers' Asstn. v. Whites River Inspectors' & Shippers'
Asstn., 57 Fla.. 300, 48 So. 643 (1909).

332. Marshall v. Hartman, 104 Fla. 143,139 So. 441 (1932).

333. Ibid.

334. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586,20 So. 780 (1896).

335. Koch v. Pinellas County, 5 Fla. Supp. 116 (1956); Koch v. Wick, 87 So.2d 47
(1956).

336. E.g., Fla. Spec. Acts 1953 cc. 28999, 29505, 29442, 29222, 29232; Fla. Spec.
Acts 1925, c. 10811.

337. Fla. Spec. Acts 1953, c. 29442.

338. Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253, 103 So. 625 (1925).












339. Ibid.

340. Watts v. Spencer, 51 Oreg. 262, 94 P. 39 (1908).

341. Sowles v. Minot, 82 Vt. 344, 73 A. 1025 (1909).

342. See 56 Am. Tur. Water. *g 23, 51, 115, 134, 140, 154, 164, 323 (1947) and
cases there cited.

343. Akin v. Spencer, 89 Cal. App. 842, 69 P.2d, 430 (1937); E. Clemens Horst Co.
v. Tarr Mining Co., 174 Cal. 43, 163 P. 342 (1917).

344. Mally v. Weidenstein, 88 Wash. 398, 153 P. 342 (1915).

345. Kennedy v. Niles Water Supply Co., 173 Mich. 474, 139 N.W. 241 (1913).

346. Robertson v. Brooksville and Inverness Ry., 100 Fla. 195, 129 So. 582 (1930).

347. 87 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1956).

348. E.g ELster v. Springfield 49 Ohio St. 82, 30 N.E. 274 (1892).

349. Grobart v. Passaic Valley Water Co., 135 N.J. Eq. 38, 37A 2d. 98

350. E.g.. Gerenger v. Sumers, 24 N.C. 299 (1842).

351. Eg,. Whitehan v. Brown, 80 Kan. 897, 102 P. 783 (1909).

352. Florida Water Resources Study Comm'n Report of County Comnittees on Water
Problems, (1956), P. 1, g II.A4 (Alachua County).

353. California v. United States, 235 F.2d 647 (1956).

354. E.g.. Crosby v. Bessey, 49 Me. 539 (1860) (dictum); Jones v. Crow, 32 Pa. St.
398 (1859) (dictum). A problem of this nature was reported in Florida Ass'n
of Soil Conservation Dist. Supervisors, Preliminary Summary of Tata on Water
Problems (1954), g II.E.1., problem 1 (Hamilton County).

355. 4 Tiffany Real Property 1192 (3d ed. 1939). For examples of pollution which
would probably fall into the category of public nuisance see, e.g. lorida
Ass'n of Soil Conservation Dist. Supervisors, Preliminary Sumarv of Data on
Water Problems (1954), II.E.1, problems 2-5.


i-~----I--*- ~h--*-4---


_ I_











356. E.g. Town of Shelby v. Cleveland Mill & Power Co., 155 N.C. 196, 71 S.E. 218
(1911).

357. g. Peacock v. Stinchcomb, 189 Mich. 301, 155 N.W. 349 (1915).

358. .g. Florida Ass'n of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary
Sumary of Data on Water Problems (1954) I I.A.I., problems 2, 4 (Baker
County); I.A.I., problem 53 (Putnam County); I.C.5., problem 3 (Flagler County);
II.A.1., problem 30 (Martin County); Florid Water Resources Study Combn.
Report of County Cogmittees on Water Poblems (1956), p. 10, 8 I.A.I. (Citrus
County); I.C.3., (DeSoto County) p. 21.

359. Florida Assin of Soil Conservation Dist. Supervisors, Prelii Sumary
of Data on Water Problems (1954), 8 II.D.2., problem 1 (Bradford County).

360. E.. Florida Asstn of Soil Conservation Dist. Supervisors, Prelinar Sumary
of Data on Water Problems (1954), 8 II.A.4., problem 1 (Alaca County); .,
problem 18 (Putnam County); Id., problem 19 (Sumter County); f.II.A.4.,
problem 4 (Charlotte County).

361. 18 Am. r., Eminent Domain 2(1938).

362. State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 So. 225, 237 (1900).

363. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. v. Brevard County, 159 Fla. 311, 31 So.2d 483 (1947).

364. Fla. Stat. 74.15 (1955).

365. Fa. Stat. 73.17 (1955).

366. Fla. Stat. 361.02 (1955).

367. Fla. Stat. 361.04 (1955).

368. Fla. Stat. 298.22 (1955).

369. Fla. Stat. 378.16(1) (1955).

370. Fla. Stat. 184.03(4) (1955).

371. Fla. Stat. 159.03(4) (1955).

372. Fla. Stat. 158.04 (1955).

373. Fla. Stat. 180.22 (1955).











374. Fla. Stat. 388.15, 389.09 and 390.17 (1955).

375. Fla. Spec. Acts, c. 29063 (1953).

376. Fla. Spec. Acts, c. 29114 (1953).

377. Fla. Spec. Acts, c. 29301 (1953).

378. Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Board of Water Comn'rs of St. Paul, 56 Minn. 485, 58
N.W. 33 (1894).

379. Ibid.; cf. Merrill-Stevens Co. v. Durkee, 62 Fla. 549, 57 So. 428 (1911).

380. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Conmrs, 168 U.S. 349,
(1897).

381. Lord v. Meadville Water Co., 135 Pa. 122, 19A.1007 (1890); Wagner v. Purity
Water Co., 241 Pa. 328, 88A.484 (1913).

382. Koch v. Pinellas County, 5 Fla. Supp. 116 (1956).

383. Wagner v. Purity Water Co., 241 Pa. 328, 88A.484 (1913); cf. Nantahola Power
& Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N.C. 200, 17 S.E.2d 10 (1941).

384. Wagner v. Purity Water Co., 241 Pa. 328, 88A.484 (1913).

385. Rouse v. City of Kinston, 188 N.C. 1, 123 S.E. 482 (1924).

386. 18 Am. ju., Eminent Domain 84 (1938).

387. Wilson v. St. Johns County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929).

388. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. v. Brevard County, 159 Fla. 311, 31 So.2d. 483 (1947);
Demeter Land Co. v. Florida Public Service Co., 99 Fla. 954, 128 So. 402 (1930).

389. Fla. Laws 1947, c. 24952; Fla. Laws 1941, c. 21415.

390. Fla. Const., Art. IX, 12.

391. National Container Corp. v. State, 138 Fla. 32, 189 So. 4 (1939). Cf. Watson
v. Holland, 155 Fla. 342, 20 So.2d 388 (1944).

392. See Walsh, Treatise on Equity 179-180 n. 13.












393. Robertson v. Arnold, 182 Ga. 664, 186 S.E. 806 (1936); City of Elberton v.
Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749; 49 S.E. 779 (1905); Chestatee Pyrites Co. v. Cavenders
Creek Gold Mining Co., 118 Ga. 255, 45 S.E. 267 (1903).

394. McCausland v. Jarrell, 68 S.E.2e 729 (W.Va. 1951). The court does say that
it will balance the equities in an appropriate case, but on the facts as
brought out in the dissenting opinion it would be hard to find a more
appropriate case.

395. Davis v. Palmetto Quarries Co., 212 S.C. 496, 48 S.E.2d 329 (1948); Williams
v. Haile Gold Mining Co., 85 S.C. 1, 66 S.E. 117 (1909); State v. Columbia
Water Power Co., 82 S.C. 181, 63 S.E. 884 (1909). For recent dicta that the
court may balance the equities in an appropriate case see Forest Land Co. v.
Black, 216 S.C. 255, 266, 57 S.E. 2d 420, 426 (1950); Sprouse v. Winston,
212 S.C. 176, 185, 46 S.E.2d 874, 878 (1948).

396. Amsterdam Knitting Co. v. Dean, 162 N.Y. 278, 156 N.E. 757 (1900): "The
contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is, ... that since the
referee found that there was no substantial damage to the plaintiff, there
was no power in the court to direct the removal of the obstruction or the
restoration of the stream to its former condition. This contention cannot
be sustained. It seems to be well settled that in such cases, where the act
complained of is such that by its repetition or continuance it may become
the foundation or evidence of an adverse right, a court of equity will inter-
pose by injunction, though no actual damage is shown or found.

397. Story, J., in Webb v. Portland Co., 3 Sumn. 189, 197 (C.C.Me. 1838): "If,
then, the diversion of water complained of in the present case is a violation
of the right of the plaintiffs, and may permanently injure that right, and
become by lapse of time the foundation of an adverse right in the defendant,
I know of no more fit case for the interposition of a court of equity, by way
of injunction, to restrain the defendants from such an injurious act. If
there be a remedy for the plaintiffs at law for damages, still that remedy
is inadequate to prevent and redress the mischief. If there be no such
remedy at law,then, a fortiori. a court of equity ought to give its aid to
vindicate and perpetuate the right of the plaintiffs."

398. See 4 Tenn. L. Rev. 232.

399. See Restatement. Torts 941, comment a (1939).

400. Montgomery Limestone Co. v. Bearden, 256 Ala. 269, 54 So.2d 571 (1951).

401. Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947).












402. Young v. International Paper Co., 179 La. 803, 155 So. 231 (1934); cf. National
Container Corp. v. State, 138 Fla. 32, 189 So. 4 (1939) (same result accomplished
on different legal basis).

403. Lakeland v. Harris, 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470 (1940) (The court in this case
did order the municipality to take all feasible measures to cut down the amount
of pollution.); Gileson v. Tampa, 114 Fla. 619, 154 So. 842 (1934) (Injunction
refused against dumping raw sewage in Tampa Bay).

404. 46 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1950).

405. See notes 399-401 Supra.

406. Brooks v. Patterson, 159 Fla. 263, 31 So.2d 472 (1947). The court refused to
enjoin the operation of an airport because plaintiff did not complain until
several million dollars had been spent on its construction.

407. Babcock v. Red Cattle Co., 6 Fla. Supp. 113 (1953).

408. "De minimns non curat lex". (The law does not concern itself with trifles).

409. Tampa So. R.R. v. Nettles, 82 Fla. 2, 89 So. 223 (1921).

410. McCann v. Chasm Power Co., 211 N.Y. 301, 105 N.E. 416 (1914); Edwards v. Allouez
Mining Co., 38 Mich. 46 (1878); c. Platte Valley Irr. Dist. v. Tilley, 142
Neb. 122, 5 N.W. 2d 252 (1942).

411. Koch v. Pinellas County, 5 Fla. Supp. 116 (1953).

412. Comment, 4 Tenn. L. Rev. 231 (1926).

413. 87 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1956).

414. Purcellville v. Potts, 179 Va. 514, 19 S.E.2d (1942); accord Mayor of Baltimore
v. Brack, 175 Md. 615, 3 A.2d 471 (1939); Hartzell v. Village of Hambury, 155
Misc. 345, 279 N.Y. Supp. 650 (Sup. Ct. 1935), aff'd. 248 App. Div. 667, 289
N.Y. Supp. 910 (4th Dept), modified 272 N.Y. 234, 5 N.E. 2d 801, modified,
273 N.Y. 476, 6 N.E.2d 411 (1936).

415. 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470 (1940).

416. Seaboard All Fla. Ry. v. Underhill, 105 Fla. 409, 141 So. 306 (1932).

417. 138 Fla. 32, 189 So. 4 (1939).


Y _I _I











418. 155 Fla. 342, 20 So.2d 388 (1944).

419. Accord. Brooks v. Patterson, 159 Fla. 263, 31 So.2d 472 (1947); See comment,
Nuisance. Defense of Statutory Authorimation of Location. 25 Tax L. Ry. 968
(1946).

420. See e.g. 172, 173.

421. Biggs v. Red Bluff Water Power Control Dist., 131 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Civ. App.
1939).

422. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S.W. 658 (1904);
Union Planter's Bank & Trust Co., v. Memphis Hotel Co., 124 Tenn. 649, 39
S.W. 715 (1911).

423. See avis Administrative Law, 240 (1951).

424. Todd v. Gee, 17 Ves. 274 (1810); see Jesus College v. Bloom, Ambler 54
(Chancery 1745) (Also reprinted in 3 Atk. 762).

425. City of Harrisonville v. Dickey Clay Mfg Co., 289 U.S. 334 (1933); Harding v.
Stanford Water Co., 41 Conn. 87 (1874).

426. City of New York v. Pine, 185 U.S. 93 (1902).

427. Lakeland v. Harris, 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470 (1940); Gibson v. Tampa, 114 Fla.
619, 154 So. 842 (1934); pf..Edason v. Denison, 142 Fla. 101, 194 So. 342
(1940).

428. Washingtonian Apartment Hotel Co. v. Schneider, 75 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1954).

429. Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 So. 143 (1922); Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387,
112 So. 264 (1927) (Same case on appeal from new trial).

430. See Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lam, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429 (1913); Symm es v.
Pratrie Pebble Phosphate Co., 64 Fla. 480, 60 So. 223 (1912).

431. Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 So. 143 (1922).

432. Id. at 446, 93 So. at 146.

433. Pensacola and Atlantic R.R. v. Jackson, 21 Fla. 146, (1884) (dictum).

434. Jarrett Lumber Co. v. Christopher, 65 Fla. 379, 61 So. 831 (1913); Jacksonville
T & K.W.R.R. v. Lockwood, 33 Fla. 573, 15 So. 327 (1894).











435. Bruton v. Cardina Power & Light Co., 217 N.C. 1, 6 S.E.2d 822 (1940).

436. See notes 432 and 433 supra.

437. See Forest City Cotton Co. v. Mills, 219 N.C. 279, 13 S.E.2d 557 (1941).

438. Clinard v. Town of Kernersville, 215 N.C. 745, 3 S.E.2d 267, 270 (1939).

439. Crawford v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N.W. 781 (1903), McCook Irrigation &
Water Power Co. v. Crews, 70 Neb. 109, 102 N.W. 249 (1903), (reversed on
rehearing on other grounds, 70 Neb. 115, 102 N.W. 249, 1905).

440. See page 70 supra

441. See 3 Kinney, Irrigation & Water Rights .j62 (2nd Ed. 1912).

442. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N.C. 200, 176 S.E.2d 10 (1941).

443. Rouse v. City of Kinston, 198 N.C. 1, 123 S.E. 482 (1924).

444. Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429 (1913).

445. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.17 (1954).

446. Fla. Laws 1919, c. 7857.

447. Fla. Laws 1943, c. 21820, now Fla. Stat. c. 87 (1955).

448. Fla. Stat. 8 87.01 (1955).

449. Ibid.

450. Quoted in McCarthy, Declaratory Tudgements, 3 Miami L.A. 365 (1949).

451. Webb v. Giddens, 82 So.2d 743 (1955); Flemming v. State Road Dept., 25
So.2d 376 (1946).

452. Webb v. Giddens, 82 So.2d 743 (1955).

453. State v. Everglades Drainage Dist., 20 So.2d 397 (1945).

454. 25 So.2d 376 (1946).

455. Fla. Stat. 87.02 (1955).










456. Ibid.

457. Va. Code 8 62-94.1 through 62-94.8 (1950).

458. Watson v. Centro Espanol De Tampa, 30 So.2d 288 (1947).

459. E.g., Thompson and Fiedler, Some Problems Relating to Legal Control of Use
of Ground Waters, 30 Am. Water Works Ass'n. Journal 3052, 1054 (1938); Black,
Basic Concepts in Groiud Water 39 Wlater- works Assn. journal 979 (1947).

460. E.g. Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294.

461. See p. 5, supra.

462. See p. 45, supra.

463. See p. 51. supra.

464. See p. 52 supra.

465. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 20 So. 780 (1896).

466. See discussion at p. 12 supra.

467. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 20 So. 780, 784 (1896) (dictum);
see discussion at p. 54 supra.

468. See p. 51 supra.

469. See p. 45 supra.

470. Thomas. ydrology vs. Water Allocation in the Eastern United States 9 (1956).

471. Id. at 10.

472. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 20 So. 780 (1896).

473. Koch v. Wick, 87 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1956); see also Cason v. Florida Power Co.,
74 Fla. 1, 76 So. 535 (1917).

474. See notes 139-44 supra.

475. E.g. Florida Water Resources Study Co n. Report o County Committees g
Water Problems 956), p. 53, LII.B.- Maion County neighboring wels
dr up natural spring); Id. at p. 9, III.B.. (Calhoun County) ( irrigation
well dried spring, injured fish pond & reservoir); Florida Asasn of o










Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Sumary of Data on Water Problems
(1954), 9 LIa.B.l. problem 2 (Polku County) (natural spring dri-d upiidustria-
well); see also Id., I V.B.l., problem 5 (Seminole County) (digging of man-
made channel opened up flowing spring, resulting in lowering water-table of
adjoining lands).

476. E.g Florida Water Resources Study Commission, Report of County Committees
on Water Problems (1956), p. 8, II.C.1. (Broward Cunty);Foida '.
o Coservation District Supervisor, Preliminary Suary of Data on Water
Problems (1954), I.B.4., problem 1 (Dixie County), problem-2 -~ rnando
County), problem 3 (Nassau County); Id. I.C.5., problem 2 (Charlotte County),
problem 4 (Franklin County), problem 15 (Osceola County); Id. I II.C.1.,
problem 2 (Polk County).

477. E.g. Florida Water Resources Study Comnn. Report of County Committees on
Water Problems (956), p. 70 III.A.7. (Polk County); Florida Asn
Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Preliminary Smmary Da- aon Water
Probems (1954), 8 IV.A .l, problem 1 (Baker County), problem-2 range County);
Id. IV.A.3., problem 1 (Hamilton County); Id. V.B.1., problem 1 (Alachua
County), problem 2 (Bradford County), problem 4 (Columbia County).

478. An example of this is the Green Swamp area in central Florida. See Florida
Water Resources Study Comission Reort of County Committees on Water Problems
9), p. 70, V (Polk County; Florida Assn of Soil Conservation District
Supervisors, Preliminary Summary of Data gn Water Problems (1954), .,
problem 9 (Lake County). See s alsoTma R g TFrn, Oct. 26, 1956, p.
24A, col. 3.

479. Thomas. Hydrology vs. Water Allocation in the Eastern United States 14 (1956).

480. See notes 145-48 supra.

481. Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 29594.

482. Thomas. Hydrology vs. Water Allocation in the Eastern United States 9 (1956).

483. Elis, Some Current and Proposed Water-Rights Legislation in the Eastern States,
14 Iowa L. Rev.237, 242-54 (1956); Institute of Law and Government. A Study of the
Riparian and Prior Appropriation Doctrines of Water Law (School of w, Univ. of
Ga. 1955)


484. Advance Sheet 10, General Acts of Miss. 1956, H.B. 232


i I




-A---- I:~~


485. Virginia Advisory Legislative Council. Watr Resources of Virginia 6 (1955).

486. Busby. The Beneficial Use of Water in South Carolina 14-15 (1952) (Preliminary Report),

487. Thomas Maddoch, Jr., Chief, Irrigation Operation Branch, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
At the session devoted to comments of invited observers, Mr. Maddoch stated: "The
appropriation doctrine is presumed to set up water rights with finaility and
mathematical precision, but any man in the West where water use is fully developed
has no idea as to his water rights."

488. Busby op. cit. supra note 486, at 14.
489. Fisher. Western Experience and Eastern Appropriation Proposals 23 (1956) (The
Conservation Foundation)

490. Id. at 20

491. "Relative to many other uses, irrigation is a very uneconomic user of water. In
1947, about 25 trillion gallons of water were used to produce irrigated crops in
the West valued at about 2.4 billion dollars, of which over 50 percent was grown
in the three Pacific States. The value of the crops was equal to about 10 cents
for each 1,000 gallons of water withdrawn. In comparison, about 15 trillion gal-
longs of water were used nationally in 1947 in producing goods having a value
added by manufacture of 74.4 billion dollars or about $5 for each 1,000 gallons
of water withdrawn. In other words, manufacturing produced 50 times as many
dollars of products with the same amount of water as did irrigation. Furthermore,
the consumptive use of water by irrigation was 5 or 10 times as great as for
manufacturing." 5 Materials Policy Commission, Resources for Freedom 86 (1952)
(The Paley Commission).

492. 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 801 n. 23; See also Materials Policy Commission, op. cit. supra
note 491, at 90,94.

493. Koch v. Wick, 87 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1956); Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502,500,113 So. 708
(1927); Broward v. Mabry, 58, Fla. 398, 400, 50So. 826, (1909); Op. Atty Gen. Fla.
.056-113.

494. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1; Fla. Const. decl. of rights, 1 12.

495. Fla. Water Resources Study Comn n. Final Report tentativee draft) findings 11, 14, 15.

496. Fisher. Due Process and the Effect of Eastern Appropriation Proposals on Existine
Rigts (Conservation Foundation, 1956); Marquis, Freeman, and Heath, New Water Rights
ws-for the Tennessee Valley.23 Tenn. L. Rev. 797, 828-31 (1955); Ellis, Soe Current
and Proposed Water-Rights Legislation in the Eastern States, 41 Iowa L. Rev. 237.,
260 (1956); Agnor, Riparian Rights in the Southeastern States, 5 .1T41, 148
(1952); Kentuc.k Research Publication No. 42. Water Rignht Law in KaeMtukv 13-14 (1956)..









497. Frank Trelease, Professor of Law at University of Wyoming, speaking at The
Conservation Foundation symposium on the Law of Water Allocation in the Eastern
United States, transcript of Oct. 6, sessionT p.28.

498. Wis. Stat. 31.14 (1955).

499. Minn. Stat. 105.38-.64 (1935). For comments on the Wisconsin and Minnesota
statutes see Ellis, Some Current and Proposed Water-Rights Legislation in the
Wastern State, 41 Iowa L. Rev. 237, 239-41.

500. N.C. Gen. Stat. 113-8.1 (1952). For a critical discussion of the weaknesses in
this statute, see Ellis. Some Legal Aspects of Water Use in North Carolina 41-9
(0onaervation Foundation, 1956).

501. Ky. Rev. Stat. 1262.690(3) (1955), discussed in Kentucky Research Publication No.
42 Water Rghts Law in Kentucky 9-11 (1956).

502. Va. Code H8 62-94.1-.12 (1950).

503. Va. Code 62-94.4 (1950).

504. Thus "riparian land" has been defined in Virginia as "land which is contigous to
and touches a watercourse; it does not include land outside the watershed of the
watercourse; real property under common ownership and which is not separated from
riparian land by land of any other ownership shall likewise be deemed riparian
land, not withstanding that such real property is divided into tracts and parcels
which may not bound upon the watercourse." Va. node I 62-94.1(5) (1950); See
discussion, supra, pp. 9-10.

505. 58 N.J.S.A. c. 4A (1940).

506. 58 N.J.S.A. c. 4A-1 (1940).

507. 58 N.J.S.A. c. 4A-2 (1940).

508. See pp. 7-9, supra.

509. See pp. 9-10, supra.

510. See pp. 16-17, supra.

511. See pp. 18-20, 21-23, supra.

512. See p.. 3, supra.


513. See p. 45, supra.


3-





(4 .


514. See p. 51, supra.

515. See pp. 54-5, supra.

516. See pp. 7-8, supra.

517. See pp. 12-17, supra.

518. Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502, 113 So. 708 (1927), discussed pp. 16-17, supra.

519. See pp. 13-14, supra.

520. See pp. 31-4, supra.

521. See p. 34, supra.

522. See pp. 35-7, supra.

523. See pp. 40-1, supra.

524. See p. 41, supra.

525. See pp. 45-6, supra.

526. See pp. 47-8, supra.

527. See pp. 54-5, supra.

528. See p. 59, supra.

529. See pp. 60-5, supra.

530. See pp. 67-8, supra.

531. See pp. 77-9, supra.

532. The case for such a nulti-purpose approach is stated in Capter VIII, supra, pp.
84-8. Perhaps the best example of such a multi-purpose district in Florida is the
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District. See Fla. Stat. 8 387.01-.51
(1955). For recent special legislation authorizing mnlti-purpose "improvement
service districts" see Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30631 (Broward County); see also
notes 480, 481, supra.

533. Fla. Spec. Acts 1955, c. 30940.


Ii




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