OCR Text |
Show 5 26 THE APPROPRIATI VE RIGHT (3) Use of water in the West for mining purposes sprang into prominence with the California Gold Rush, which followed the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills in January 1848. The association of gold and water came about because much of the gold was extracted from the ground by means of hydraulic or placer mining processes in which the use of water was essential.437 From California the hydraulic mining practices spread to other States in the Northwest and to Alaska. (4) With the growth of western settlements into villages, towns, and cities, community water requirements rose from domestic to municipal status. Industrial purposes that required the use of water came to include not only grist and saw mills and milling connected with mining, but manufacturing of other kinds and development of hydraulic power. Mining and Irrigation During the feverish activity that prevailed during the gold-mining activity in California-where the western appropriation doctrine in its present form received its greatest impetus-uses of water for mining purposes predominated in the water cases that reached the supreme court. The principle of priority of appropriation was applied in the first cases as between appropriations of water for mining purposes,438 and soon afterward to other purposes,439 including domestic and irrigation.440 In 1857, the California Supreme Court commented that the judiciary of that State had had thrown upon it responsibilities not incurred by the courts of any other State in the Union with respect to a large class of cases-unknown in the jurisprudence of other States-involving the great mining interest dependent upon the use of water.441 With the eventual decline in the far-flung mining industry and increase in irrigation of lands, controversies over irrigation water rights that reached the high courts of California and other Western States became relatively more 449 numerous. ""Harding, S.T., "Water Rights for Irrigation," p. 3-4 (1936). 43*Eddy v. Simpson, 3 CaL 249, 252 (1853). 439 Saw milling: Tartar v. Spring Creek Water & Min. Co., 5 CaL 395 (1855). Mining versus milling: Conger v. Weaver, 6 CaL 548 (1856). ^Crandallv. Woods, 8 CaL 136 (1857). 441 Bear River & Auburn Water & Min. Co. v.New York Min. Co., 8 CaL 327, 332 (1857). 442 Of 52 water rights decisions rendered by the California Supreme Court to the end of 1872-in which year the Civil Code appropriation procedure was enacted-45 involved claims of appropriative rights for mining purposes, ten for milling, nine for irrigation, four for domestic or municipal, and one for stock watering. In 16 of these cases, more than one purpose of use of water was involved. Eight cases included both mining and milling, four both mining and irrigation. Of 19 cases in the 10-year period 1873-1882, 16 involved irrigation, four each involved domestic, municipal, and mining, and two stockwatering. Of 42 decisions of the Montana Supreme Court relating to water rights rendered to 1900 inclusive, 13 were in the approximate Territorial period 1869 to 1889, inclusive, |