OCR Text |
Show provided that "all sources of water supply within the boundaries of the State, whether above or beneath the surface of the grounds" may be appropriated as provided in the act (Nev. Comp. Laws, 1929, secs. 7890 and 7891). In 1915 a statute provided that "all underground waters, save and except percolating water" were subject to appropriation (Nev. Sess. Laws, 1915, sec. 1, ch. 210, p. 323). A Utah statute in 1903 (Utah Comp. Laws, 1907, secs. 1288-18) made water flowing above or under the ground in known or defined channels public property. The appropriation doctrine was held applicable in Utah to such water (Whitmore v. Utah Fuel Co. 73 Pac. 764, 767 (1903)). Mr. Coker also suggests amending the Desert Land Act to "settle the question as to the use of irrigation well or percolating waters for the reclamation of desert lands, whether the States have passed any ground-water legislation or not." Whether Federal legislation, even as to percolating water, is necessary or desirable is an important consideration. The State of Arizona can make such provision as it thinks wise for the acquisition of rights to percolating water on public or other lands in the State. There are decided advantages to the present provisions of the desert land law which assure the acquisition by the applicant of the supply of water necessary for desert land entry, and leave up to the State the method of such acquisition. This letter, of course, attempts only to clarify the problem IV-13 |
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] : |