Both riparian and prior appropriation doctrines have their own unique character. they also have their unique benefits and drawbacks.

provide a brief comparison of the two doctrines. what are the differences between the two? what are the benefits of each doctrine (in their respective region of the country)? what are the major drawbacks of each?

-the prior appropriation is slowly changing in the western

does this doctrine, in its present form address the present issues of legal availability for ownership, distribution, efficiency, society needs, environment, (or other issues) in our western states?

looking ahead, say 100+ years, does this doctrine need to change to meet the above listed future needs of citizens and the environment? if your answer is no, why and how does it meet these needs? if your answer is yes, why and how does it need to change?

(there are two parts to the question both concerning riparian rights and the prior appropriation doctrine)