| OCR Text |
Show EFFICIENCY OF PRACTICES 649 Use of Water The standards governing the use of water made by an appropriator are essentially the same or comparable to those that apply to diversion and conveyance practices and appliances.285 Fundamentally, it is the policy of the law to encourage efficiency and to avoid unnecessary waste in applying water to the soil.286 A pragmatic application of the rule to situations that appear so frequently in litigation recognizes that an appropriator should be allowed to exercise his right to its full extent, but that such exercise must be a reasonable one. Thus, "it is necessary and proper to limit prior appropriators to the volume of water reasonably required to raise crops under reasonably efficient methods of applying water to the land."287 As with diversion and conveyance of water, the appropriator is not compelled to irrigate his land in the most scientific manner known.288 The system of irrigation in common use in the locality, if reasonable and proper under existing conditions, is to be taken as a standard, even though a more economical method might be installed at a higher cost to the irrigator.289 In the attainment of this aim, it is unnecessary waste that is not countenanced.290 In an early case, the California Supreme Court held that in watering his land the irrigator is subject to the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. "An action cannot be maintained against him for the reasonable exercise of his right, although an annoyance or injury may thereby be occasioned to the plaintiffs."291 2tsTudor v. Jaca, 178 Oreg. 126, 141-143, 164 Pac. (2d) 680 (1945), 165 Pac. (2d) 770 (1946);Doherty v. Pratt, 34 Nev. 343, 348, 124 Pac. 574 (1912). 2S6Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irr. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d)489, 547,45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935); Ramseyer v. Jamerson, 78 Idaho 504, 515, 305 Pac. (2d) 1088 (1957); Court House Rock Irr. Co. v. Willard, 75 Nebr. 408,411-412,106 N. W. 463 (1906); United States v. Caldwell, 64 Utah 490,499-500, 231 Pac. 434 (1924). See Mammoth Canal & Irr. Co. v. Burton, Judge, 70 Utah 239, 256, 259 Pac. 408 (1927). 287/« re Water Rights of Escalante Valley Drainage Area, 10 Utah (2d) 77, 82, 348 Pac. (2d) 679 (1960); Hardy v. Beaver County Irr. Co., 65 Utah 28, 41, 234 Pac. 524 (1924). 2**Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irr. Dist, 3 Cal. (2d)489, 573,45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935). 2*>Worden v. Alexander, 108 Mont. 208, 215-216, 90 Pac. (2d) 160 (1939); Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 207 Cal. 8, 23, 276 Pac. 1017 (1929). 290Comstock v. Larimer & Weld Res. Co., 58 Colo. 186, 205-206, 145 Pac. 700 (1914); the appropriative right includes no surplus water: Johnston v. Little Horse Creek Irrigating Co., 13 Wyo. 208, 227, 79 Pac. 22 (1904); an excessive diversion of water cannot be regarded as a diversion to beneficial use: Combs v. Agricultural Ditch Co., 17 Colo. 146, 153-154, 28 Pac. 966 (1892). 291Gibson v. Puchta, 33 Cal. 310, 316 (1867), quoted in Stroup v. Frank A. Hubbell Co. 27 N. Mex. 35, 37-39,192 Pac. 519 (1920). |
