AZ vs. CA:19 California Exhibits, Vol. XIX; Nos. 4000-4044

page IV-12

appropriation was well recognized. See California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Co. (295 U.S. 142, 154 (1934)). The recognition of "prior appropriation" in the Desert Land Act, moreover, does not limit the doctrine to surface water. Mr. Coker's statement that the "laws in the Western States in 1916 or thereabouts, will disclose that none of them had any provisions in their code for the appropriation of ground or percolating water" is not entire accurate. Section 4l69, Revised Statutes 1901, Arizona, authorized prior appropriation of "any of the unappropriated waters" in the Territory. This section was carried over into Revised Statutes 1913, section 5337. In 1919, it was definitely provided that ground water in definite underground channel was subject to appropriation (Arizona Code Annotated 1939, 75-101). The 1919 act confirmed the law of Arizona recognized prior to and after 1915, as indicated by the case cited by Mr. Coker of Howard v. Perrin (76 Pac. 460, 462 (1904) upheld by the United States Supreme Court (200 U.S. 71 (1905)), and reaffirmed by Marieopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co. (39 Arizona 65, 4 P. (2d) 369, 376 (1931)). The decisions of the State courts, of course, are declarative of the law of the State (Brlstor v. Cheatham, 255 P. (2d) 173, 175 (1953)). In 1899, Idaho enacted a law providing that the right to the use of subterranean waters may be acquired by appropriation (Idaho Code, 1948, secs. 42-103). In 1913, the Nevada statute rv-12