OCR Text |
Show proposed to be eliminated from the Smith lease had been properly classified as .suitable for disposition under the Desert Land Act. 1/ The decision of April 2, 1956, which was rendered prior to the expiration of the time granted to Mr. Smith to appeal from the Bureau decision of February 21, 1956, found that the desert land applicants intended to rely for the reclamation [59] of the land applied for on percolating water to which the applicants had shown no prior right. The Acting Director held that under California law the right to use percolating water underlying land is not such a right as will support the allowance of a desert land entry. He therefore vacated the former decision canceling Mr. Smith's grazing lease in part and rejected the desert land applications. Thereafter, the appellants took this appeal. Some time later the State Water Rights Board of the State of California, which administers water rights in the State, requested and was granted an opportunity to file a statement on behalf of the appellants. On November 7, 1956, a legal memorandum was submitted by the Board. The appellants contend that the Acting Director had no jurisdiction to reverse the decision of February 21, 1956, in the absence of an appeal by Mr. Smith and that the decision of April 2, 1956, is erroneous both as to matters of fact and conclusions of law. The appeal does not specify which facts may -/ Sidney Lee Smith, Appellant, Mary F. Kershner et al., Appellees, Los Angeles 089305, 087992 et al. III-18 |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |