| OCR Text |
Show PROPERTY CHA RACTERISTICS 441 to specific beneficial use or uses.13 The early decisions emphasized that there must be "some open, physical demonstration of the intent, and for some valuable use."14 In the early controversies, such demonstrations might take the form of beginning construction of works, or even of making surveys. Later it might be done by posting a notice at the point of intended diversion of the water and filing a copy of the claim in the county courthouse. Currently, under the administrative control laws, the intent is crystallized by filing in the State office a formal application for a permit to make the appropriation. Usufruct.--The appropriator acquires no specific property in the particles of water-the corpus of the water-while flowing in the stream. What he acquires is a right of diversion and use of some specific quantity of water that at that time may be flowing in the stream.15 This is a usufructuary right16 -sometimes termed a usufruct17-a right of possession and use only.18 The basis of acquisition of this right is beneficial use of the water.19 The right of usufruct of the appropriator is subject to a reasonable use and consumption of the water for beneficial purposes.20 Hence, the appropriative right is a right of beneficial use.21 Consummation of the intended use.- The true test of an appropriation of water is successful application thereof to the beneficial use designed.22 This consummation of beneficial use is a sine qua non of a valid appropriation under most State statutory laws.23 13 Tattersfleld v. Putnam, 45 Ariz. 156, 172, 41 Pac. (2d) 228 (1935); Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 Pac. (2d) 370, 378 (1960); Crawford v.Lehi In. Co., 10 Utah (2d) 165,168-169, 350 Pac. (2d) 147 (1960). "McDonald v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Min. Co., 13 Cal. 220, 232-233 (1859); Larimer County Res. Co. v. People ex rel. Luthe, 8 Colo. 614, 616-617, 9 Pac. 794 (1886). 1SRickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, 18 (9th Cir. 1907); Bergman v. Kearney, 241 Fed. 884, 893 (D. Nev. 1917); In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 181, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924); Garner v. Anderson, 67 Utah 553, 565, 248 Pac. 496 (1926). 16Murphy v. Kerr, 296 Fed. 536, 541 (D. N. Mex. 1923). "Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake City Water & Elec. Power Co., 24 Utah 249, 266, 67 Pac. 672 (1902). iSBrennan v. Jones, 101 Mont. 550, 567, 55 Pac. (2d) 697 (1936). 19In re Manse Spring and Its Tributaries, 60 Nev. 280, 286, 108 Pac. (2d) 311 (1940); Application ofFilippini, 66 Nev. 17, 21-22, 202 Pac. (2d) 535, 537 (1949). 20Big Rock Mutual Water Co. v. Valyermo Ranch Co., 78 Cal. App. 266, 274, 248 Pac. 264 (1926). "Hufford v. Dye, 162 Cal. 147, 153, 121 Pac. 400 (1912); Dalton v. Kelsey, 58 Oreg. 244, 253-254,114 Pac. 464 (1911). "Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 Pac. (2d) 370, 378 (1960). "See Fourzan v. Curtis, 43 Ariz. 140, 146, 29 Pac. (2d) 722 (1934); Albrethsen v. Wood River Land Co., 40 Idaho 49, 60, 231 Pac. 418 (1924); Gates v. Settlers'Mill, Canal & Res. Co., 19 Okla. 83, 89-91, 91 Pac. 856 (1907); Cundy v. Weber, 68 S. Dak. 214, 222-223, 300 N. W. 17 (1941); Crawford v. Lehi In. Co., 10 Utah (2d) 165, 168-169, 350 Pac. (2d) 147 (1960); State v. Laramie Rivers Co., 59 Wyo. 9, 39, 136 Pac. (2d) 487 (1943). |
