| OCR Text |
Show 502 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT Idaho Supreme Court observed in 1952 that a determination of the duty of water, which involved many factors, is based upon "two primary considerations: beneficial and economical use," and is a determination of a fact.332 The Montana Supreme Court cautioned that the limitation of economy of use is to be applied within reasonable limits; that is, the objective of a determination of the duty of water is the quantity necessary to irrigate land not only economically, but successfully. Emphasis should of course be placed upon economy of use, but not "to such an extent as to imperil success."333 And the system of irrigation in common use in the locality, if reasonable and proper under existing conditions, may be taken as a standard, even though a more economical method might be adopted.334 As considered and applied in the decisions, economical use is an antonym of waste. If an appropriator wastes water, he necessarily is not using it economically. As he has no right to waste water unreasonably or unnecessarily, then of necessity he must make economical as well as reasonable and beneficial use. The limitation of the appropriative right to economical and reasonable use thus precludes any waste of water that can be reasonably avoided.335 The use of water is so necessary as to preclude its being allowed to run to waste. Its "full beneficial and economical use requires" that when the wants of one appropriator are supplied, another may be permitted to use the flow.336 The Colorado Supreme Court "recognizes the urgent and ever increasing necessity" for enforcing economical use of water for irrigation. "Whenever there is a wasteful, or other unnecessary or unlawful use of water, it should be promptly and efficiently dealt with under the law."337 v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 113 (C. C. D. Nev. 1897); Anderson v. Bassman, 140 Fed. 14, 28 (N. D. Cal. 1905); "A prior appropriator is only entitled to the water to the extent that he has use for it when economically and reasonably used," Washington State Sugar Co. v. Goodrich, 27 Idaho 26, 44, 147 Pac. 1073 (1915); "Under the law and the specific terms of the decree as it has been directed to be modified, the allowance of a prior right to plaintiffs for one hundred and eighty-four inches is limited to such times as that quantity, by reasonable and economical use, is necessary for the irrigation of their lands," Twaddle v. Winters, 29 Nev. 88, 109-110, 85 Pac. 280 (1906), 89 Pac. 289 (1907). 332 Uhrig v. Coffin, 72 Idaho 271, 274, 240 Pac. (2d) 480 (1952). 333Allen v. Petrick, 69 Mont. 373, 376, 380, 222 Pac. 451 (1924). 334 Worden v. Alexander, 108 Mont. 208, 215, 90 Pac. (2d) 160 (1939). See Rodgers v. Pitt, 129 Fed. 932, 943-944 (C.C.D. Nev. 1904). 335 Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Oakley Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 30, 33-34, 35 (9th Cir. 1917). 336Hufford v. Dye, 162 Cal. 147, 159, 121 Pac. 400 (1912). 331Comstock v. Larimer & Weld Res. Co., 58 Colo. 186, 205-206,145 Pac. 700 (1914). |
