| OCR Text |
Show 398 APPROPRIATION OF WATER sustained by the California Supreme Court in an early decision.859 In several later decisions, the validity of such rights was recognized.860 Of course, these situations are exceptional. If, as is usual, the first appropriator does not make a valid appropriation of the entire water supply, the surplus waters of such source are subject to successive appropriations. As a result, the total number of rights so attaching to a stream system may be small, or it may be very large, running into the hundreds or even thousands.861 Succeeding appropriations by first user. -The first appropriator himself may also be one of the succeeding appropriators, for use of water on either the same land or on other land, without losing his first priority provided others are not injured.862 If a prior appropriator wishes to acquire a succeeding appropriation, he must make a new appropriation therefor on each occasion. Each such new appropriation on his part will be inferior in priority to all rights of others that have intervened since his first appropriation was made.863 The difference between this situation and a deliberately acquired right of gradual development has been discussed earlier. Relation of priority to diversion works.- It has been long established that a single headgate and diversion ditch may be used for the service of several different priorities. These may be successive and several appropriations under rights owned by the same water user.864 Or they may be several rights owned by different appropriators. It was doubtless a matter of mutual convenience for Nichols and his associates to convey the water for the use of their respective farms for a certain distance through the same irrigating ditch; and in so doing they were entitled to have their respective rights protected the same as if the water had been conveyed through separate ditches, or through ditches having separate and independent head gates.865 859Brown v. Mullin, 65 Cal. 89, 90, 3 Pac. 99 (1884). t60Larsen v. Appollonio, 5 Cal. (2d) 440, 444, 55 Pac. (2d) 196 (1936); Huffner v. Sawday, 153 Cal. 86, 94, 94 Pac. 424 (1908); Baxter v. Gilbert, 125 Cal. 580, 581-582, 58 Pac. 129(1899). 861 "Any person or number of persons may have an interest in, or become the exclusive owner or owners of, different water rights, each of which rights may have had their inception at different times, and in such cases the order of their respective priorities must necessarily depend upon the dates of the initiation of each particular right." Whitedv. Cavin, 55 Oreg. 98, 106, 105 Pac. 396 (1909). *62Caviness v. La GrandeIrr. Co., 60 Oreg. 410, 428, 119 Pac. 731 (1911). 863 Tudor v.Jaca, 178 Oreg. 126, 158, 164 Pac. (2d) 680 (1945), 165 Pac. (2d) 770(1946); Union Grain & Elevator Co. v. McCammon Ditch Co., 41 Idaho 216, 221-223, 240 Pac. 443 (1925); Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 106 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897). 864Simpson v. Bankofier, 141 Oreg. 426, 432, 16 Pac. (2d) 632 (1932), 18 Pac. (2d) 814 (1933). t6SNichols v. Mclntosh, 19 Colo. 22, 24, 34 Pac. 278 (1893). |
