OCR Text |
Show 380 APPROPRIATION OF WATER privilege is not accorded "for mere future speculative profit or advantage, without regard to existing or contemplated beneficial uses."772 The Washington Supreme Court declined to apply the rule of gradual development in cases in which the projected uses were too remote and speculative,773 or where the growth was extremely slow.774 In determining what should be considered reasonable diligence under the circumstances of the particular case, said the court, "The doctrine of common sense applies."775 Application of the rule under the administration statutes.-The considera- tions which govern solutions of questions relating to gradual or progressive development are found chiefly in controversies over appropriative rights that were initiated before the administrative statutes were enacted. Thus, they had to do primarily with acts that already had taken place. Now the administrative statutes which are in effect in most Western States grant authority to administrators to fix time periods for constructing works and applying water to beneficial use. Thus, these statutes contemplate acts to be performed in the future. Under this administration statute arrangement, the intent of the prospective appropriator is expressed in his application for a permit as clearly as the State administrative officer requires. In fixing the time periods, this officer takes into consideration all the circumstances to the extent that they can be ascertained at the time. If for one reason or another the permittee finds the going difficult and fears that he cannot fulfill his obligations within the prescribed time, he may ask for an extension. In acting upon such request, the administrator has access to the extant judicial principles as to reasonableness and diligence. If an extension is granted and the permittee completes his appropriation within the extended time and pursuant to his recorded intention, his priority relates back to the time his application was filed. In other words, the same basic principles are involved now as before the administrative era, but they are applied under publicity regulated methods of appropriation. In a 1956 case involving administrative fixing of rates for reservoir water, the Wyoming Supreme Court took occasion to quote with approval one of its own previous statements which in turn was quoted from the opinion in a Utah case decided in 1910. This was: "'"*** an application [for a permit to appropriate water] may properly be made when it is made in good faith and with an actual bona fide intention and a present design to appropriate the 772 Toohey v. Campbell, 24 Mont. 13, 17, 60 Pac. 396 (1900). In this case, the intent of an appropriator of water in 1868, as to the then present and contemplated use of water diverted in that year, was held to have never reached beyond the purpose of irrigating a tract of 25 acres then enclosed. It did not extend to an additional area within a larger tract, taken up in 1876, embracing the former enclosure and possessory claim. 773 Thorp v. McBride, 75 Wash. 466, 469-470, 135 Pac. 228 (1913). 774In reDoan Creek, 125 Wash. 14, 215 Pac. 343 (1923). 715In reAlpowa Creek, 129 Wash. 9, 14-15, 224 Pac. 29 (1924). |