OCR Text |
Show ABANDONMENT AND STATUTORY FORFEITURE 293 The Idaho Supreme Court held that to consummate a forfeiture under the statute, nonuse of the water must have been continuous for 5 consecutive years.214 Kansas.-If an appropriator fails to continuously apply appropriated water to lawful and beneficial uses, for 3 years, without due and sufficient cause, such failure shall constitute a forfeiture and surrender of the right.215 "Every water right of every kind" shall be deemed abandoned and shall terminate if, without due and sufficient cause, there is no lawful, beneficial use of the water under such right for 3 successive years. The statute provides procedures for declarations of abandonment and termination.216 Montana .-None. Nebraska.-When an appropriator, or his successor in interest, ceases to use the water appropriated for some beneficial or useful purpose, the right ceases. The statute provides procedures for declarations of forfeiture and annulment of any water appropriation that has not been used for some beneficial purpose or, having been so used at one time, has ceased to be used for such purpose for more than 3 years.217 The constitutionality of this statute providing procedures for declaring ™Carrington v. Crandall, 65 Idaho 525, 531, 147 Pac. (2d) 1009 (1944). 215Kans. Stat. Ann. §42-308 (1964). 216 Id. §82a-718(1969). "'Nebr. Rev. Stat. § §46-229 to -229.05 (1968). The Nebraska Supreme Court appears to have indicated in a 1956 case that this statute does not affect the question of the perfection of an appropriative right based on an application since the 1911 enactment. North Loup River Pub. Power & Irr. Dist. v. Loup River Pub. Power Dist, 162 Nebr. 22, 26-28, 74 N.W. (2d) 863 (1956). ("The granting of the application * * * is a conditional right which becomes a perfected and completed appropriation only when the works are completed and the waters put to a beneficial use in compliance with the conditions and limitations of the grant." 162 Nebr. at 28.) The court said: "[W]e take note of the fact that the irrigation law of this state was substantially changed in 1895 in that the department was then charged with the duty of adjudicating the rights of appropriators. Laws 1895, c. 69, § 16, p. 248. It is evident, also, that there were numerous applications not perfected and many appro- priations which had been abandoned that required legislative attention. The Legislature in 1911 directed the department to proceed to adjudicate all rights of appropriators which had not been adjudicated, and directed the department to forfeit and annul all appropriation rights where it appeared that any water appropriation had not been used for some beneficial or useful purpose, or having been so used at one time had ceased to be used for such purpose for more than 3 years. Laws 1911, c. 153, § 17, p. 503. We do not construe this to mean that the statute requires that an appropriator is necessarily limited to such period of 3 years in putting appropriated waters to beneficial use under a new application. We think the time in which such waters must be put to a beneficial use must be determined from the terms, conditions, and limitations of the adjudicated appropriation right." 162 Nebr. at 27-28. [Regarding extant provisions concerning the perfection of water appropriations, see Nebr. Rev. Stat. §46-238 (1968).] For some subsequent discussions of the statute, see State v. Nielsen, 163 Nebr. 372, 380-387, 79 N.W. (2d) 721 (1956); Hickman v. Loup River Pub. Power Dist, 176 Nebr. 416, 126 N.W. (2d) 404, 407 (1964). |