OCR Text |
Show M-36263 February 23, 1955- To the Director, Bureau of Land Management. You have requested my opinion as to whether, in view of the decision by the Supreme Court of Arizona in the case of *[50] Bristor v. Cheatham, 75 Ariz. 227, 255 P.2d 173 (1953), applications for desert land entries in that State can be allowed or allowed desert land entries in that State can be patented where reclamation of the entry depends upon percolating water. As the term "percolating water" is used in your request and this opinion, it means underground water which does not comprise or is not part of an underground stream which has a well-defined channel and banks and a current. Section 1 of the Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877 (^3 U.S.C., 1952 ed., sec. 321), provides in part as follows: * * * it shall be lawful for any citizen of the United States* * * to file a declaration* * * that he intends to reclaim a tract of desert land * * * by conducting water upon the same * * * Provided however that the right to the use of water by the person so conducting the same * * * shall depend upon bona fide prior appropriation: * * * and all surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use, together with the water of all, lakes, rivers and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining and manufacturing purposes subject to existing rights. [19 Stat. 377.] III-3 |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |