| OCR Text |
Show DECLARATIONS OF POLICY 5 -"The court knows judicially that water in many sections of this great Western country is its very lifeblood."15 The State policy of Arizona has ever been "to make the largest possible use of the comparatively limited quantity of water within its boundaries."16 In California, with the passing of the years and the growth of industries, it has become "an obvious proposition that the development of the state's resources-its agricultural, horticultural, stock-raising, power, and other like industries-depends largely upon the fullest use of the water supply of the state."17 It is the policy not only in Montana, said the supreme court of that State, but of all Western States, to require the highest and greatest possible duty from the waters of the State in the interest of agriculture and other useful and beneficial purposes.18 The rule is well settled that courts may take judicial notice, as a matter of common knowledge, of the natural features of the State, including the general location of its mountains, the courses of its rivers, and their general history.19 Ownership of Water Supplies In various Western States there are constitutional and statutory declarations and judicial acknowledgments that waters within their respective State boundaries belong to the public or to the State. "The modern expression is that such waters are owned by the state in trust for the people."20 The declaration of ownership sometimes applies specifically to unappropriated waters, or it is made subject to the right of appropriation for beneficial use or subject to existing rights of use. Property of the Public Thus, in the Colorado and New Mexico constitutions, the declaration of public ownership of water applies to every natural stream.21 Declarations of public ownership of water of all sources, or of sources specifically named, appear in the statutes of some Western States.22 15Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Read, 5 Fed. (2d) 466,468 (9th Cir. 1925). "Pirna Farms Co. v. Proctor, 30 Ariz. 96, 102,112-113, 245 Pac. 369 (1926). 17 Water ford In. Dist. v. Turlock In. Dist., 50 Cal. App. 213, 220, 194 Pac. 757 (1920). 18 Worden v. Alexander, 108 Mont. 208,90 Pac. (2d) 160 (1939). 19State of Texas v. Bradford, 121 Tex. 515,527, 50 S. W. (2d) 1065 (1932). 20Murphy v. Ken, 296 Fed. 536, 540 (D. N. Mex. 1923), affirmed, 5 Fed. (2d) 908 (8th Cir. 1925). 21 Colo. Const., art. XVI, § 5; N. Mex. Const., art. XVI, § 2. "See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-101 (1956); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 148-2-1 and 148-21-2 (Supp. 1969); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.025 (Supp. 1969);Bergman v. Kearney, 241 Fed. 884, 893 (D. Nev. 1917); N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-1-1 (1968); N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-01 (1960); Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 537.110 (Supp. 1969); Utah Code Ann., § 73-1-1 (1968); Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.010 (Supp. 1961). With respect to Montana, see Mettler v. Ames Realty Co., 61 Mont. 152, 161-162, 201 Pac. 702 (1921). |
