| OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 381 water for a beneficial use, though contemplated in the future, and when it is not made for the purposes of mere speculation or monoply." ' "776 The Wyoming water rights statute is typical of those that authorize the administrative agency to grant extensions of time for beginning and completing construction and making application of water to beneficial use "for good cause shown," without particularizing the causes.777 Policies of some other States are: In Nebraska, the applicant must "vigorously, diligently, and uninterruptedly prosecute such work to completion unless temporarily interrupted by some unavoidable and natural cause" and "with such a force as shall assure the average rate of constructional progress necessary to complete such work or works within the time stipulated in the approval of such application, notwithstanding the ordinary delays and casualties that must be expected and provided against."778 In South Dakota, an extension may equal the time during which work was prevented "by the operation of law beyond the power of such applicant to avoid."779 In North Dakota, times may be extended "for good cause shown."780 The New Mexico legislature authorizes the State Engineer to allow extensions of the times specified in the permit for completion of works "equal to the time during which work was prevented by acts of God, operation of law, or other causes beyond the control of the applicant."781 Extensions of time are allowed in Idaho when an applicant is prevented from proceeding because of some matter under the jurisdiction of the United States, or by litigation over his title. Extensions in case of large reservoirs (involving more than 200,000 acre-feet capacity) or diversions (involving more than 25,000 acre-feet in one irrigation season for a project of no less than 5,000 acres) because of the time required for organizing, financing, and construction may be granted, provided that at least $ 100,000 has already been expended toward purchases of property and construction of works.782 116Lake De Smet Res. Co. v. Kaufmann, 75 Wyo. 87, 99, 292 Pac. (2d) 482 (1956), quoting from Scherck v. Nichols, 55 Wyo. 4, 18, 95 Pac. (2d) 74 (1939), quoting from Sowards v. Meagher, 37 Utah 212, 221-222, 108 Pac. 1112 (1910). In this last cited case, the Utah Supreme Court confessed that the question was open to debate and not free from doubt, but that the conclusion indicated had been reached under circumstances of good faith and freedom from mere speculation or monopoly. 777 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-206 (1957). 778Nebr. Rev. Stat. § 46-238 (1968). 779S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-5-25 (1967). 780 N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-04-14 (Supp. 1969); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § 56 (1970). 781 N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-5-7 (1968). 782 Idaho Code Ann. § 42-204 (Supp. 1969), discussed and applied in Keller v. Magic Water Co., 92 Idaho 276, 441 Pac. (2d) 725, 732 (1968). |
