OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 287 The first act in appropriating water in a mining camp was the posting of a notice at the proposed point of diversion. This stated the appropriator's intention to divert a specified quantity of water through a ditch heading at that place. The notice was considered evidence of possession.334 Although this was the customary way of initiating an appropriate right, it could be done by some other act that manifested the appropriator's intention in such manner as to put a prudent man upon inquiry-such as surveys, stakes, blazing of trees, and actual construction of works as well as notices.335 In any event, the appropriation was initiated by the first act manifesting the intention; but title to the right did not vest until the appropriation was completed.336 A valid appropriation of water could be made by constructing a conduit and actually diverting water from the source of supply in fulfillment of some useful purpose.' The first appropriation procedural statute in California was enacted in 1872 in the Civil Code.338 Other western situations.-(1) The appropriative principles developed in the mining camps during the Gold Rush, which became an essential part of California water law, profoundly influenced the development of water appropriation law in the West. The reason for predominance of this influence over that of the Utah and Spanish-American customs was that the mining fever spread rapidly over the entire Northwest, as far east as Montana and Wyoming, and carried with it the pattern established in California with respect to acquisition, holding, and exercise of mining claims and mining water rights. From mining water right customs, the purposes of the procedure logically expanded to include irrigation, domestic, and manufacturing uses. (2) Thus in Montana, according to its supreme court, originally "all appropria- tions were made pursuant to the rules and customs of the early settlers of California, which had been adopted in Montana territory and given the force of law, by recognition of the legislature * * * and the courts."339 (3) In not only California and Montana, but in most other Western States as well, appropriations of water were made before the State or Territorial legisla- tures provided procedure for making appropriations. In many of them, this was done before the legislatures had enacted any law at all respecting appropriative water rights. For example, in various parts of Oregon, before any legislation relating to methods of appropriating water had been enacted, there were in effect local customs under which an intending appropriator posted a notice of his claim and filed it in the county records. "Such a rule may be said to have become 334 Thompson v. Lee, 8 Cal. 275, 280 (1857). 33sKimballv. Gearhart, 12 Cal. 27, 29-31 (1859). 336Nevada County & Sacramento Canal Co. v. Kidd, 37 Cal. 282, 310-311 (1869). 337 Utt v. Frey, 106 Cal. 392, 395, 39 Pac. 807 (1895). SeeHaight v. Costanich, 184 Cal. 426,431, 194 Pac. 26 (1920). 338Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1410-1422(1872). 339Maynard v. Watkins, 55 Mont. 54, 55, 173 Pac. 551 (1918). |