OCR Text |
Show RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR WATER CONTROL AND RELATED PURPOSES 273 Oregon Supreme Court in 1898, was a legislative sanction, confirmatory of the customs of miners and, like the Act of Congress of July 26, 1866, "was the recognition of a pre-existing right, rather than a granting of a new easement in real property."254 Oregon also accords to the United States, the State, or any person, firm, cooperative association, or corporation the right to acquire the right-of-way across public, private, and corporate lands, or other rights-of-way across public, private, and corporate lands, or other rights-of-way, for riecessary construction, maintenance, and use of all necessary works for securing, storing, and conveying water for irrigation, drainage, or other beneficial purposes, on payment of just compensation under the laws of eminent domain. Similar provision is made for acquiring the right to enlarge an already constructed conduit to convey the required quantity of water, upon payment of compensation for the damage, if any, caused thereby.255 Utah.-The Utah statute likewise grants to any person a right-of-way "across and upon public, private, and corporate lands" for construction and use of all necessary water control facilities "upon payment of just compensa- tion therefor."256 The authorization in another section,257 to enlarge an existing ditch owned by someone else on payment of compensation, has been construed by the Utah Supreme Court as invoking the principle involved in eminent domain in the event that the parties cannot agree.258 California. -California municipal corporations are granted the right-of-way over public lands of the State for waterworks and powerplants, and the right to take materials for construction and also State waters under certain circum- stances.259 Federal projects.-In some State statutes, special provision is made for grants of rights-of-way across State lands for project development works constructed by authority of the United States.260 California legislation granting rights-of-way to the United States over public lands of the State for certain purposes, including ditches and canals constructed under the provisions of the Reclamation Act, and providing that subsequent patents or conveyances of such lands located or filed on should be issued subject thereto, was repealed.261 2$4Carson v. Gentner, 33 Oreg. 512,523, 52 Pac. 506 (1898). 2SSOreg. Rev. Stat. § § 772.305 and .310 (Supp. 1963). "'Utah Code Ann. § 73-1-6 (1968). i51Id. § 73-1-7. 3SSNielson v. Sandburg, 105 Utah 93, 96-102, 141 Pac. (2d) 696 (1943), citing Salt Lake City v. East Jordan In. Co., 40 Utah 126, 121 Pac. 592 (1911); Peterson v. Sevier Valley Canal Co., 107 Utah 45, 50-51, 151 Pac. (2d) 477 (1944). 259Cal. Pub. Utilities Code § § 10151-10155 (West 1956). 260See Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 541.240 (Supp. 1969); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § § 5-4-2 and 46-8-18 (1967). 241 Cal. Pub. Resources Code § § 8351 and 8352, repealed, respectively, Stats. 1943, ch. 1124, and Stats. 1953, ch. 501. 450-486 O - 72 - 20 |