Water Rights Along the Dry Fork
Two towns and a farming cooperative draw from the same river during a severe drought. Under the state's prior-appropriation doctrine, the cooperative holds the oldest water right (dating to 1912) and is entitled to 40 percent of normal flow. The upstream town holds a 1950 right for municipal use; the downstream town holds a 1975 right. This year's flow is 55 percent of normal. The cooperative plans to irrigate its full acreage, which would leave the towns short. The state water engineer must allocate the shortage. The downstream town argues that municipal water for drinking should outrank irrigation regardless of priority date; the cooperative argues that its senior right is legally protected and that its members face bankruptcy without water.
1. Explain how prior appropriation resolves this dispute and where the towns' argument fits.
Read the worked answer
Under prior appropriation, the senior right is satisfied first, then junior rights in order of date, until the available supply is exhausted. The cooperative's 1912 right is senior to both towns, so in a strict application it is served before the 1950 and 1975 municipal rights.
The towns' argument is a policy preference for municipal use over irrigation, not a priority claim. It may be recognized in some states through statutory preferences or emergency powers, but it does not automatically override a senior right. The downstream town's 1975 right is the most junior and would be curtailed first.
So the legal baseline: satisfy the cooperative's 40 percent entitlement to the extent supply allows, then the upstream town, then the downstream town. The towns must argue for a preference or negotiate, not assume seniority is irrelevant.
2. Recommend an allocation approach and identify the risks of each path.
Read the worked answer
Path 1 - Strict priority. Serve the cooperative fully, then the towns with the remainder. Risk: the downstream town may lack drinking water, creating a public-health emergency and likely litigation or emergency state intervention.
Path 2 - Negotiated sharing. The engineer convenes the parties to voluntarily reduce the cooperative's draw in exchange for compensation or future credits. Risk: the cooperative may refuse, and voluntary deals can collapse under pressure.
Path 3 - Emergency preference order. The state invokes authority to prioritize municipal drinking water. Risk: legal challenge from the cooperative and precedent that undermines settled water rights.
Recommendation: Pursue Path 2 first with a hard deadline, using Path 1 as the legal default and Path 3 only if public health is imminently threatened. This respects the senior right while creating room to protect drinking water.