| OCR Text |
Show 10 STATE WATER POLICIES (2) Some typical legislative and judicial statements.-The handling of this concept of beneficial use of water in the many relevant statutes and court decisions is general and without significant dissent, irrespective of geographical location. Some typical examples follow. Consider first the generally more arid States: Statutes of Nevada not only declare that beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right to the use of water, but restrict such rights to such quantity of water as may be necessary, when reasonably and economically used for beneficial purposes, irrespective of the carrying capacity of the ditch.52 In an early decision in a controversy arising in Nevada, a Federal court stated that an excessive diversion of water for any purpose cannot be regarded as a diversion to a beneficial use, inasmuch as water in this State "is too scarce, needful, and precious for irrigation and other purposes, to admit of waste."53 The Supreme Court of Colorado held in two of its earliest water rights de- cisions that the first appropriator of water from a natural stream for a beneficial purpose has the prior right thereto, and that the true test of an appropriation of water "is the successful application thereof to the beneficial use designed."54 The Montana Supreme Court called attention to the fact that in the early days of irrigation in the Territory and State, extravagant quantities of water were awarded to the litigants by the courts, which were not always to blame; but that the position was eventually taken that "If comparison between the principles regulating the appropriation and use of water is permissible it may be said that the principle of beneficial use is the one of paramount importance."55 Next, consider the six States lying on the 100th meridian (on the eastern border of the compact group of 17 contiguous States), the western parts of which in general are drier than the eastern parts and adjoin the interior block of generally more arid States: The Nebraska Supreme Court, after citing the constitutional declaration that the necessity of water for domestic and irrigation purposes in the State is a natural want,56 observed that the statutory and judicial laws of Nebraska on the subject of irrigation show a clear intention to enforce and maintain a rigid economy in the use of the public waters.57 Further, said the court, it is the policy of the law in all the arid States to compel an economical use of the waters of natural streams. A statute of Kansas provides that all appropriations of water must be for some beneficial purpose, and that an appropriation in excess of the reasonable needs of the appropriators shall not be allowed.58 "Nev. Rev. Stat. § § 533.035 (Supp. 1969) and 533.060 (Supp. 1967). "Union Mill&Min. Co. v.Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 97 (D. Nev. 1897). "Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, 447 (1882); Thomas v. Guirard, 6 Colo. 530, 533 (1883). "Allen v. Petrick, 69 Mont. 373, 377-378, 222 Pac. 451 (1924). S6 Nebr. Const., art. XV, § 4. 51 State v. Birdwoodlrr. Dist., 154 Nebr. 52, 55, 46 N. W. (2d) 884 (1951). 58Kans. Stat. Ann. § § 82a-707 and 82a-718 (1969). |
