OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 513 to have his full water supply delivered at his land is required to use reasonable care and diligence in holding the transmission losses to a practical minimum.385 And he may be compelled to do so.386 As said by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1923, "We have not arrived at the state of irrigation when farmers can practically lay iron water pipes, or construct concrete ditches; yet the question that water for irrigation must be used economically and without needless waste is no longer debatable."387 A Federal court observed that although the water user is not bound to extraordinary diligence in means and methods of use, and may proceed according to local custom, he is bound to reasonable care in construction and maintenance of appliances to the end that others be not unnecessarily deprived of the water.388 (4) In granting permits under the water administration statutes, reasonable conveyance losses are taken into account.389 385 Joseph Mill. Co. v. Joseph, 74 Oreg. 296, 302, 304, 144 Pac. 465 (1914). 3MRoeder v. Stein, 23 Nev. 92, 96-97, 42 Pac. 867 (1895). In the adjudication of rights to the use of Hood River waters, the various water users were required to put their conveyance works "in good serviceable condition * * * in a good and husband-like manner" by taking certain prescribed steps prior to a specified date: In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 188, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924). ^Foster v. Foster, 107 Oreg. 355, 363, 366, 213 Pac. 895 (1923). The parties were required, by a certain date, to repair their ditches and flumes and keep them in condition, which could be done "without building concrete or new ditches and at a reasonable expense." An appropriator has no right to run water into a swamp and cause the loss of two-thirds of a stream simply because he is following lines of least resistance. Doherty v. Pratt, 34 Nev. 343, 348, 124 Pac. 574 (1912). A loss of 50 percent of the water between the point of diversion and place of use was held by the Idaho Supreme Court to be not reasonable. "The farmers could not reasonably have been expected to build a cement ditch at the cost of $100,000, as suggested by one of the witnesses. But they could have been reasonably expected to prevent the water spreading out at several places as shown by the evidence." Basinger v. Taylor, 36 Idaho 591, 597, 211 Pac. 1085(1922). 3B*Dern y. Tanner, 60 Fed. (2d) 626, 628 (D. Mont. 1932). "To secure the amount to which the appropriator is entitled admeasured at his land, no excess can be diverted from the source to cover unreasonable loss in transit." Losses from the ditch in litigation were held to be excessive. 389 An appropriation is effectual only as to so much water as is actually applied to beneficial use, together with a reasonable allowance for waste, seepage, and evaporation: Kans. Stat. Ann. § 42-302 (1964); "reasonable transportation losses" and "reservoir evaporation losses" are taken into consideration in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.070 (Supp. 1967); "reasonable conveyance losses" are included in Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 23, § 655 (1969); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § 33 (1970), and S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-5-6 (1967), in limiting the permitted amount of water to be taken, do not mention conveyance losses, but in view of the declarations in the statutes respecting beneficial use, a limitation to reasonable conveyance loss is clearly to be •implied. 450-486 O - 72 - 35 |