OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 317 he had no choice.459 Judicial expressions were made in some other States.460 (2) The Utah experience. For a time there was a question in Utah as to whether the current method of appropriating water was exclusive, but the doubt was resolved in the affirmative. After holding in the Hooppiania and Torsak cases that the statutory requirements must be complied with,461 the Utah Supreme Court 10 years later purported to overrule the Hooppiania case in this respect, although the statement appears to have been dictum.462 However, the legislature, then in session, so amended the appropriation statute as to provide in explicit terms that no appropriation of water could be made and no right to the use thereof initiated otherwise than in the manner provided in the statute. Four years later, the Utah legislature further declared its intent that the statutory provisions relating to abandonment and forfeiture of appropriative rights should be applicable whether the unused or abandoned water is permitted to run to waste or is used by others without right. It was further declared that no right to the use of water, either appropriated or unappropri- ated, can be acquired by adverse use or adverse possession.463 The Utah Supreme Court accepted the legislative position. The court declared that the 1939 amendment left no doubt that thereafter no right to the use of unappropriated water could be acquired without complying with the statutory requirements.464 (3) Definite exception in Idaho. As above stated, Idaho water law presents a definite exception to the general rule as to exclusiveness of the current statutory procedure. There are in this jurisdiction two prevailing methods of appropriating water of watercourses, of equal validity-the "so-called constitutional" method and the "statutory" method.465 The "constitutional" method stems from the fact that the 459Parker v. Mclntyre, 47 Ariz. 484, 489, 56 Pac. (2d) 1337 (1936); Tattersfield v. Putnam, 45 Ariz. 156, 174, 41 Pac. (2d) 228 (1935); England v. Ally Ong Hing, 105 Ariz. 65, 459 Pac. (2d) 498,504 (1969). 460Crane v. Stevinson, 5 Cal. (2d) 387, 398, 54 Pac. (2d) 1100 (1936); Meridian v. San Francisco, 13 cal. (2d) 424, 450, 90 Pac. (2d) 537 (1939); Enterprise In. Dist. v. Tri-State Land Co., 92 Nebr. 121, 147-148, 138 N. W. 171 (1912); Harkey v. Smith, 31 N. Mex. 521, 526, 247 Pac. 550 (1926). The extant statutory method is the only way since the act became effective in which water rights may be acquired in Oregon: Staub v.Jensen, 180 Oreg. 682, 686-687, 178 Pac. (2d) 931 (1947). 46lDeseret Live Stock Co. v.Hooppiania, 66 Utah 25, 34-37, 239 Pac. 479 (1925); Torsak v.Rukavina, 67 Utah 166,170, 246 Pac. 367 (1926). 462 Wrathall v. Johnson, 86 Utah 50, 120,40 Pac. (2d) 755 (1935). ""Utah Laws 1935, ch. 105, Laws 1939, ch. Ill, Code Ann. § § 73-1-4 and 73-3-1 (1968). 464Hanson v. Salt Lake City, 115 Utah 404, 415, 205 Pac. (2d) 255 (1949). ^Pioneer In. Dist. v. American Ditch Assn., 50 Idaho 732, 737, 1 Pac. (2d) 196 (1931). See Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 |