OCR Text |
Show 18 STATE WATER POLICIES authorize the respective legislatures to provide for irrigation improvements to be paid for by taxation of the benefited lands.110 Waters appropriated and used for agricultural and domestic purposes under sale or rental in Idaho are exclusively dedicated to such use.111 The necessity of water for domestic and irrigation purposes in Nebraska is a natural want.112 The Idaho constitution provides that the State may control and promote the development of the unused water power within its boundaries; and it reserves to the State the right to regulate and limit the use of water for power purposes.113 That of Oregon declares that the right to all water for the development of water power and to water power sites owned by the State shall be held by it in perpetuity; and it clothes the State with broad powers to control and develop water power and to distribute electric energy either alone or in cooperation with the United States, other States, and political subdivisions.114 In Nebraska, the use of water for power purposes is deemed to be a public use; and it must never be alienated, but may be leased or otherwise developed as prescribed by law.115 Some statutes particularize purposes for which water may be appropri- ated.116 Others authorize appropriations of water for beneficial use, and contain provisions respecting certain purposes but without placing any limitation upon the purpose of use if it is beneficial.117 Courts have indicated in some instances their approval of the appropriability of water for certain purposes not stated in the statutes,118 and in other instances they have voiced their disapproval because of the circumstances of the particular case.119 Formerly, in Alaska, use of water for mining was preeminent. Most of the litigated controversies have been in this field. However, water appropriation has always been possible not only for mining but for other useful purposes as 110 Okla. Const., art. XVI, § 3; S. Dak. Const., art. XXI, § 7; Tex. Const., art. Ill, § 52, and art. XVI, § 59c. 111 Idaho Const., art. XV, § § 4 and 5. 112 Nebr. Const., art. XV, § 4. 113 Idaho Const., art. VIII, § 2 and art. XV, § 3. 114 Oreg. Const., art. XI-D. 115 Nebr. Const., art. XV, § 7. 116 The Texas statute contains a long list of purposes: Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 7470 and 7471 (Supp. 1970). 117 See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § § 1-A and 33 (1970). 118 Swimming pool or fishpond:Osnes Livestock Co. v. Warren, 103 Mont. 284, 300-302, 62 Pac. (2d) 206 (1936); propagation offish: Faden v. Hubbell, 93 Colo. 358, 368, 28 Pac. (2d) 247 (1933). 119 Extermination of pests: Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay-Stratnmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 567-568, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935); formation of icecap to promote retention of moisture: Blaine County Investment Co. v. Mays, Idaho 766, 773, 291 Pac. 1055 (1930); disposal of debris: In re Deschutes River and Tributaries, 134 Oreg. 623, 665, 286 Pac. 563, 294 Pac. 1049 (1930). |