OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 491 In other cases, rights to make valid appropriations of the entire flows of streams have been recognized by the courts when the claimant could establish his need for the entire flow.269 Appropriations Made Under Water Administrative Procedures One who seeks to appropriate streamflow in a permit-system State must state in his application the quantity of water that he wishes to appropriate for a specific purpose or purposes. This is usually expressed in cubic feet per second (or second-feet) for direct diversion, and in acre-feet for reservoir storage. Approval of his application, which is usually the permit, may not apply to the entire quantity of water that he requests, but it does declare the specific quantity that he is authorized to appropriate under the permit. His final license or certificate of appropriation, likewise, confirms the exact quantity of water that he has put to beneficial use in accordance with the prescribed requirements, which is the amount that the State recognizes as the quantitative limit of his appropriative right. And in the States in which no license or certificate is issued, the right recognized by the State refers to the quantity which the intending appropriator demonstrates that he has put to beneficial use. Likewise, in the special proceedings for determination of completed appropriative rights, the specific quantity of water adjudged to each claimant, and listed in the court decree, is that which he proves to have put to beneficial use. See chapter 15. Measure of the Appropriative Right The measure of an appropriative right was thus summarized by a California district court of appeal:270 The extent of an appropriator's or adverse user's right is limited, not by the quantity of water actually diverted, nor by the capacity of his ditch, but by the quantity which is, or may be, applied by him to his beneficial uses. * * * An appropriator's right is limited to such quantity, not exceeding the capacity of his ditch, as he may put to a useful purpose upon his land within a reasonable time, by use of reasonable diligence. * * * A diversion over and above what is reasonably necessary for the uses to which he devotes the water cannot be regarded as a diversion for a beneficial use. He cannot waste.* * * also are discussed in chapter 7 under "Methods of Appropriating Water of Watercourses-Restrictions and Preferences in Appropriation of Water-Preferences in Water Appropriation-Use of appropriated water: In time of water shortage." 269 See for example, Brown v. Mullin, 65 Cal. 89, 90, 3 Pac. 99 (1884); Drake v. Earhart, 2 Idaho 750, 757, 23 Pac. 541 (1890); Larsen v. Apollonio, 5 Cal. (2d) 440, 444, 55 Pac. (2d) 196 (1936); Keller v. Magic Water Co., 92 Idaho 276, 441 Pac. (2d) 725, 733 (1968). 270Felsenthal v. Warring, 40 Cal. App. 119,133,180 Pac. 67 (1919). |