OCR Text |
Show 382 APPROPRIATION OF WATER The rules and regulations of the California Water Resources Control Board state that extensions of time stated in a permit may be granted only upon a show- ing of good cause, in that failure to fulfill the terms has been occasioned by causes which could not reasonably be avoided. Causes not generally acceptable are lack of finances, occupation with other work, physical disability, and other conditions incident to the person and not to the enterprise.783 Progressive development versus future use.- There is a sharp distinction between (a) the principle of gradual or progressive development of a projected appropriation of water, which is generally accepted in the West with the essential qualifications of original intent and due diligence, and (b) the concept of appropriating water for future use and reserving the right indefinitely without doing much if anything in the way of developing the project. The right of appropriation for use in the indefinite future is commonly granted to municipal ties, with temporary rights of use by others pending the time the city needs the water. (Thjs is noted above under "Who May Appropriate Water.") This concession, however, is owing to the peculiar circumstances surrounding municipalities. Towns and cities are commonly expected to grow, and to need more water for additional citizens but at uncertain times in the future. By contrast, an attempted reservation of water by an individual, the project to lie dormant until he chooses to revive it while remaining immune from attack by other intending appropriators, conforms to the idea of a "dog in the manger" attitude. Never, to this author's knowledge, has this been sanctioned by any high court in the West.784 Gradual or progressive development, then, implies (a) the setting aside of quantities of water to be applied to beneficial use from time to time over a specified period of years, (b) within the scope of the appropriator's announced plan, and (c) predicated upon his exercise of reasonable diligence all the way along. This principle was accepted by the courts in the early history of the appropriation doctrine, and it is applied in operation of the current State administrative control statutes. Obviously, the holding out of water from general appropriation for the future use of an individual who has no intention of commencing development immediately, or for a protracted time, would violate the diligence requirement of the progressive development concept. It is alien to that generally accepted principle. The requisite conditions that are imposed are sound. Doctrine of Re/at/on Nature and importance.-The doctrine of relation, or relation back, is important in the appropriation water rights jurisprudence of the West. Its 783Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 23, § § 778 and 779 (1969). 784 On the contrary, said a Federal court in Nevada, "In the appropriation of water, there cannot be any "dog in the manger" business by either party, to interfere with the rights of others, when no beneficial use of the water is or can be made by the party causing such interference." Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 119 (C. C. D. Nev. 1897). |