OCR Text |
Show 268 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES (1) California, (a) Water had been appropriated for a special purpose, fully accomplished, and the parties had dispersed to other localities. More than 2 years passed without their giving any attention to the ditch and then only to sell it for $25.66 (b) For more than 20 years a ditch, except for a small portion, was unused by the association of miners who built it or by anyone else. No person or persons performed any acts of ownership or used it for any purpose.67 (2) Colorado. There was a practical nonuse by the town of Alamosa for more than 20 years; there had been no use by the town from the date of the decree of priority. The town installed a new source of water supply which was adequate and satisfactory; and the town had no property on which to apply this water right and no appliances for diverting the water and conveying it to the town.68 (3) Idaho, (a) Failure of the party charged to use the right or to keep the necessary facilities in repair.69 (b) The water right had not been used for approximately 25 years.70 (c) It was clearly inferable that the holders of the water right had formed an intent to abandon their ranch and water right when they failed to pay a mortgage installment; and relinquishment of possession began when they ceased to apply the water to a beneficial use.71 (4) Montana, (a) Voluntary nonuse by purchaser of water right, with no intent to resume the use, and without assertion of possession or title for a number of years after purchase, particularly where he had permitted others to use the water adversely for a period of years.72 (b) An appropriator allowed his ditches and flumes to deteriorate to such an extent that they would not convey water, and his successor in interest disclaimed on several occasions any right acquired by the appropriator.73 (5) Nebraska. Plaintiff's appropriation for power purposes regarded as abandoned, except so far as it had equipped itself to utilize it for that purpose when the water rights act of 1889 took effect or did so within a reasonable time thereafter; likewise with respect to its appropriation for irrigation purposes except so far as it was completed by application of the water to the land in a reasonable time.74 (6) Oregon, (a) A water right not exercised nor the stream waters used on 66Davis v. Gale, 32Cal. 26, 34-35 (1867). 61Kirman v. Hunnewill, 93 Cal. 519, 528-529, 29 Pac. 124 (1892). 68San Luis Valley Irr. Dist. v. Alamosa, 55 Colo. 386, 390-391, 135 Pac. 769 (1913). 69 Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irr. Co., 35 Idaho 549, 555, 208 Pac. 241 (1922). ™Knutson v. Huggins, 62 Idaho 662, 667, 115 Pac. (2d) 421 (1941). 71 Chill v. Jarvis, 50 Idaho 531, 536-537, 298 Pac. 373 (1931). "Haggin v. Saile, 23 Mont. 375, 381, 59 Pac. 154 (1899). 13 Goon v. Proctor, 27 Mont. 526, 528, 71 Pac. 1003 (1903). 74Kearney Water & Elec. Powers Co, v. Alfalfa Irr. Dist., 97,Nebr. 139, 146-147, 149 N.W. 363 (1914). ! |