OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 291 features differed from one area to another, the overall situation may be summarized in general terms as follows: (1) A substantial percentage of western legislatures followed the California pattern by enacting statutes providing for giving notice of intent to appropriate water by posting and recording in county records the details of their claims, for exercising diligence in completing the work, and for application of the principle of "relation back" to claimants who complied with the stated requirements.358 In the above discussion of nonstatutory appropriation methods, the Congressional statute has been noted which provided for recording notices and declarations of water rights in organized mining districts in Alaska. Organization of the Harris mining district, and adoption in 1882 of rules and regulations governing water appropriations, are related in court decisions which show that they are a close copy of the first 10 sections of the California Civil Code legislation of 10 years earlier.359 (2) The influence of the California Civil Code is also evident in the Wyoming acts of 1886 and 1888.360 The 1886 act required the intending appropriator to file a statement in the county records, to begin construction within 60 days after the filing, and to prosecute the work diligently to completion. The beginning of all surveys was to be construed as the beginning of construction. The Territorial law of 1888, enacted only 2 years prior to the new State legislation of 1890 which sparked the revolutionary trend toward administra- tive procedure in the West, required the county filing to be made within 90 days after commencement of construction. The priority, if construction was pursued diligently to completion, was to relate back to commencement of all necessary surveys. The Arizona legislation of 1893 also shows the influence,361 but with these important exceptions: After posting notice, a copy had to be filed in the office of the county recorder, not only of the county in which the dam or canal was to be constructed, but of each county through which the canal was to pass, as well as with the Secretary of the Territory. Failure to construct the facilities within a reasonable time, or to use reasonable diligence in maintaining them, would be held to work a forfeiture of the water right. 358Cal. Civ. Code, § § 1410-1422 (1872); Idaho Laws 1881, p. 267; Mont. Laws 1885, p. 130; Kans. Laws 1886, ch. 115; Nebr. Laws 1889, ch. 68; Wash. Laws 1891, ch. 142 (in Wash. Laws 1889-90, ch. 21, constructor of ditch was required to file in county records, within 90 days after completion, map and verified statement; priority related back to commencement of work if filing made within time limit, otherwise only to date of filing; all rights forfeited unless due diligence exercised); Oreg. Laws 1891, p. 52; Utah Laws 1897, ch. 52, §§8-11. 359McFarland v. Alaska Perseverance Min. Co., 3 Alaska 308, 310-311 (1907), affirmed sub nora. Thomdyke v. Alaska Perseverance Min Co.. 164 Fed. 657 (9th Cir. 1908). See also Alaska Juneau Gold Min. Co. v. Ebner Gold Min. Co., 239 Fed. 638 (9th Cir. 1917). Recording of claims of water rights in the Harris, Kougarok, Nome, and Mastodon Creek mining districts is noted in other decisions as well. (See the State summary for Alaska in the appendix.) 360Wyo. Laws 1886, ch. 61; Laws 1888, ch. 55. 361 Ariz. Laws 1893, No. 86. |