| OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 325 recordation) was repealed in 1955.S04 Statutes of both Nebraska and Texas require reports to the administrative agency for the purpose, among other things, of revealing indications of uncompleted appropriations. And in Nebraska, there is a procedure provided by the original 1895 statute, and well established by judicial construction, under which "any appropriator might have his claim adjudicated by the state board."505 The administrative decision is appealable to the supreme court but it is final unless so appealed.506 Appropriations of water in Oregon for generation of electricity by individuals and private corporations are governed by provisions of the "hydroelectric act."507 Administration of this act was originally vested in the Hydroelectric Commission of Oregon. In 1961, the Commission was abolished and all its functions were transferred to the State Engineer, who had been an ex-officio member of the commission.508 A Nevada statute supplements the general water rights law with respect to acquisition of rights for watering livestock, particularly range livestock. Subject to the protection of subsisting rights to water range livestock at particular places and in sufficient numbers to utilize substantially all the public range readily available to livestock watering at such places, livestock watering rights may be acquired under the general water appropriation procedure. However, a sufficient measure of the quantity of water required for such a livestock water appropriation is specification of the number and kind of animals to be watered or which have been watered there.509 South Dakota has a special procedure known as the "Dry Draw" law for acquiring rights to use waters of small streams flowing in minor channels. Water rights evidenced by location certificates are processed through the Water Resources Commission. A somewhat comparable procedure in North Dakota was repealed in 1963.510 S04Nebr. Rev. Stat. § 46-239 (1943), repealed, Laws 1955, ch. 183, § 6. A letter to the author from Dan S. Jones, Jr., Director of Water Recourses, Nebraska, dated August 18, 1961, advised that the value of the water rights certificates filed in county records had long been questioned, inasmuch as approved applications and other records in the State administrative office are sufficient evidence of a water right. 505Kearney Water & Elec. Powers Co. v. Alfalfa In. Dist., 97 Nebr. 139, 145-146,149 N. W. 363(1914). S06Nebr. Rev. Stat. § § 46-226 to -231 (1968). See Farmers' In. Dist. v. Frank, 72 Nebr. 136, 145-154, 100 N. W. 286 (1904); Enterprise In. Dist. v. Tri-State Land Co., 92 Nebr. 121, 139-151, 138 N. W. 171 (1912); Kearney Water & Elec. Powers Co. v. Alfalfa In. Dist., 97 Nebr. 139, 145-146, 149 N. W. 363 (1914); North Loup River Public Power & In. Dist. v. Loup River Public Power Dist., 162 Nebr. 22, 26, 74 N. W. (2d) 863 (1956). 507Oreg. Rev. Stat. ch. 543, "Hydroelectric Power Projects" (Supp. 1965), originally enacted, Laws 1931, ch. 67. 508Oreg. Laws 1961, ch. 224. 509 Nev. Rev. Stat. § § 533.485-.510 (Supp. 1967). 5t0S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § § 46-1-6(3), 46-6-1 to 46-4-8 (1967); N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § § 61-04-18 to 61-04-21 (1960), repealed, Laws 1963, ch. 419, § 7. |
