OCR Text |
Show ABANDONMENT AND STATUTORY FORFEITURE 273 process is simply the use of a particular method of exercising the water right. (4) Maintenance of reserve supply of water. An irrigation company maintained in reserve a supply of river water in excess of a quantity to which it was entitled by contract. At all times during high water a part of a canal was kept filled with water ready for use in case its contract supply fell below the canal's needs. "This negatives the idea of an intent to abandon."103 (5) Diligence in making repairs. A California city had been diligent in making repairs on its pipelines; and only when the state of the system indicated that repairs would no longer be an economic method of maintaining it were replacement and reconstruction of the system undertaken. This was not evidence of abandonment of the city's diversion rights.104 An impounding dam in Texas had deteriorated to such an extent that very little water could be held in the reservoir. The owner had not been responsible for the breaking of the dam; and though he had allowed it to remain in a state of disrepair for some 6 years, he discussed the matter of repair on several occasions during that time. "There is no evidence of any statement or overt act by Arnett which would indicate an intention to abandon." Judgment of no willful abandonment was affirmed.105 Change in exercise of water right.106-(1) Point of diversion. Where water is put to continuous beneficial use by the holder of a water right, the appropriation is not abandoned by reason of changing the point and method of diversion.107 (2) Place of use. A change of place of use of a decreed water right to lands other than those upon which such water right was formerly used does not constitute abandonment.108 103East Side Canal & In. Co. v. United States, 76 Fed. Supp. 836, 839 (Ct. Cl. 1948), certioraii denied, 339 U.S. 978 (1950). 104 Ward v. Monrovia, 16 Cal. (2d) 815, 820-821, 108 Pac. (2d) 425 (1940). 10sAnson v. Arnett, 250 S.W. (2d) 450, 454 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.). The court was dealing with Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7544 (1954) which provides for the loss of appropriate rights that are willfully abandoned during any 3 successive years. This statute is discussed at notes 336-338 infra. 106The subject of changes in exercise of water rights constitutes one of the major parts of chapter 9. It is there shown that in various States, by statute or court decision or both, various restrictions and in certain instances prohibitions are imposed upon certain changes. 101Anderson v. Baumgartner, 4 Cal. (2d) 195, 196, 47 Pac. (2d) 724 (1935). One does not lose his possessory rights in water by diverting the water at a point or points other than those decreed to him. Means v.Pratt, 138 Colo. 214, 331 Pac. (2d) 805 (1958); Lengel v. Davis, 141 Colo. 94, 347 Pac. (2d) 142 (1959). "This court has held that one who has a legally established water right for irrigation purposes may change the point of di- version of water therefor without losing his priority and without causing an abandon- ment of the water right." Ramsay v. Gottsche, 51 Wyo. 516, 530, 69 Pac. (2d) 535 (1937);accord, Stoner v.Mau, 11 Wyo. 366, 395-396, 72 Pac. 193 (1903). 101"Joyce v. Murphy Land & In. Co., 35 Idaho 549, 554, 208 Pac. 241 (1922). |