OCR Text |
Show 484 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT this statute, but the water right is real estate and the formalities of conveyances would be expected to be applicable. A provision in the Wyoming water rights statute is comparable to that of Texas.241 The Utah statute provides that water rights shall be transferred by deed in substantially the same manner as real estate, except when they are represented by shares of stock in a corporation, "in which case water shall not be deemed to be appurtenant to the land."242 As construed by the Utah Supreme Court, the effect of this statute was to establish a rebuttable presumption that a water right represented by corporate shares did not pass to the grantee as an appurtenance to the land on which used. The grantee could overcome such presumption by clear and convincing evidence that the water right was appurtenant and that the grantor intended to transfer it with the land, even though not expressly mentioned in the deed.243 Wyoming reservoir rights do not attach to any particular lands except by conveyance executed by the reservoir owners. Except as so attached, they may be sold or leased for beneficial use on such lands as the parties may desire. Deeds and leases for periods of 3 years or more must be executed, acknowledged, and recorded in the same way as deeds, and also filed with the State Engineer; and leases for shorter periods must be in writing and filed with the State Engineer.244 (2) Assignment of permit. Water rights statutes of several States provide that a permit to appropriate water may be assigned.245 The assignment is not binding, except on the parties, unless filed for record in the office of the State administrator. Nevada and Washington extend the provision to applications as well as to permits, but the latter requires prior approval of assignment of the application as well as filing for record. Utah has a more elaborate procedure for assigning rights claimed under applications prior to issuance of certificate of appropriation.246 California provides for assignment of applications in connec- tion with State water plans.247 The Idaho Supreme Court held that the right given in a permit is merely a contingent right, which may or may not ripen into a complete appropriation. 241 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-254 (1957). 242 Utah Code Ann. § 73-1-10 (1968). 243Hatch v. Adams, 7 Utah (2d) 73, 75, 318 Pac. (2d) 633 (1957);Brimm v. Cache Valley Banking Co., 2 Utah (2d) 93, 99-100, 269 Pac. (2d) 859 (1954). 244 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § § 41-37 and -38 (1957). Ineffective acknowledgment under § 41-38: Condict v. Ryan, 79 Wyo. 231, 233-236, 335 Pac. (2d) 792 (1959). 245 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-149 (1956); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.385 (Supp. 1967); N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-5-21 (1968); N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-04-15 (Supp. 1969); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § 27 (1970); Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 537.220 (Supp. 1969); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-5-33 (1967); Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.310 (Supp. 1961). 246 Transfer must be by written instrument in the manner provided for conveyance of real estate. It may be filed with the State Engineer; if not so recorded, it is void vis-a-vis a subsequent recorded assignment accepted in good faith. Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-18 (1968). 247Cal. Water Code § § 10504, 10505, and 12640 (West 1956). |