OCR Text |
Show 776 material conditions of this region"-that is, the doctrine of prior ap- propriation-were emphasized by the Supreme Court of Wyoming in the decision rendered in Moyer v. Preston in 1896.408 The court stated that it inclined strongly to the view that had been expressed some years before by the Supreme Court of Colorado ** to the effect that the right of prior appropriation, and the obligation to protect it, had existed prior to any legislation on the subject. The supreme court held in 1919 that the constitutional declaration of public waters included natural but not artificial springs, and that a spring developed artificially, and supplied by percolating waters, is not subject to appropriation but is the private property of the landowner.408 The legislature in 1947 enacted a law extending the principle of prior appropriation to rights to the use of ground waters.409 Exempted are developments solely for domestic, culinary, or stock use on a ranch or farm, and irrigation of lawns and gardens not exceeding four acres in area. Claimants of ground-water rights antedating the enactment of the statute are required to file statements of their claims with the State Engineer on or before December 31, 1950.410 Appropriations after the passage of the act are made by developing the ground water and filing with the State Engineer registrations of the wells or other means of obtaining the water. After the State Engineer has deter- mined the water-bearing capacity of an underground formation, the Board of Control is authorized to adjudicate the water rights thereto and to issue certificates of appropriation based upon priority of appro- priation. The procedure for declaring abandonments of surface-water rights is made applicable to ground waters. Statutory adjudications of water rights are initiated and made by the Board of Control.411 The State Engineer in the original adjudica- tion of a stream makes a hydraulic survey, and the water division superintendent takes testimony with respect to claims of water rights. The record is transmitted to the Board of Control, which enters an order determining and establishing the priorities, each party whose right is thus adjudicated being issued a certificate. Any aggrieved «* Moyer v. Preston, 6 Wyo. 308, 318-319, 44 Pac. 845 (1896). See also Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 122, 61 Pac. 258 (1900). The United States Supreme Court, in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 458-459 (1922), stated with regard to the litigant States: "The common-law rule re- specting riparian rights in flowing water never obtained in either State." 407 Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443,446 (1882). 408 Hunt v. Laramie, 26 Wyo. 160,168-169,181 Pac. 137 (1919). 40*Wyo. Laws 1947, ch. 107; Comp. Stats., 1949 Cum. Supp., §§ 71-408 to 71-420. 410 By amendment of § 5, ch. 107, Wyo. Laws 1947, the filing time was ex- tended to December 31, 1950: Wyo. Laws 1949, ch. 22. 411 Wyo. Comp. Stats., 1945, §§ 71-203 to 71-216, 71-224 to 71-237. and 71-256 to 71-263. |