Read the following passage:
In examining the evolution of nineteenth-century American property jurisprudence, legal scholars frequently analyze the doctrine of prior appropriation, which emerged in the arid mining regions of the American West. Under this custom, water rights were allocated based on priority of beneficial diversion rather than traditional riparian land ownership. In the landmark 1886 decision Lux v. Haggin, Justice Elisha McKinstry sought to reconcile this regional custom with English common-law riparian doctrine by characterizing prior appropriation not as a comprehensive replacement for the common law, but as a limited local exception grounded in federal public-land authority. By framing the doctrine as a specific condition attached to federal land grants, McKinstry maintained that common-law riparian claims remained legally binding on privately deeded estates.
Statement: In the context of the passage, the author references McKinstry's characterization of prior appropriation as a 'limited local exception grounded in federal public-land authority' primarily to illustrate how the court attempted to harmonize an emergent Western legal practice with traditional common-law doctrine.
Answer: Answer