OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 5 39 necessity of securing a permit therefor," but apparently requires him to obtain a permit if he desires to withdraw water from such impoundment for purposes other than domestic or livestock use.504 Methods of watering the stock have come into the cases. The Utah Supreme Court held that acts of merely permitting animals to drink directly from a stream gave no right to or possession of use of the water;505 but that any member of the public might water his stock in a stream without making a diversion of water therefrom, subject to all vested rights of appropriation of the streamflow, from which special rights of appropriation the public right was explicitly distinguished.506 The Nevada Supreme Court held that the general rule that to constitute a valid appropriation of streamflow there must be an actual diversion, does not apply to an appropriation for watering livestock in natural watering places formed by natural depressions.507 The Nevada stockwatering act, noted earlier in this subtopic, relates to particular watering places, to which the quantity of water appropriated is measured by the number and kind of animals watered. It obviously contemplates use of the water in place, with no question about diverting it from a stream. (See the discussion in chapter 9 under "Diversion, Distribution, and Storage Works-Some Features of Waterworks-Use of Stream- flow Without Conduit-Dipping or drinking from stream.") Other Purposes of Use of Water In general-Other purposes specifically designated as beneficial from the standpoint of appropriating water, in addition to those noted immediately below, include protection and propagation of wildlife including fish culture, game preserves, scenic attraction, public parks, transportation.508 Attention is called particularly to the following: Power.-One of the earliest water rights exercised under the riparian doctrine was the utilization of streamflow as power for propelling mill wheels.509 The decision in one of the earliest California water rights cases S04Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7500a (Supp. 1970). Although the statute does not say that the landowner may use the water for the stated purpose without a permit, such a legislative intent was necessarily implied: Anson v. Arnett, 250 S. W. (2d) 450, 452-453 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.). But it does not authorize irrigation from a watercourse without a permit: Tex. Atty. Gen., Opinion No. WW-97, May 17, 1957. 505 Bountiful City v. De Luca, 11 Utah 107, 118-119, 292 Pac. 194 (1930). 506Adams v. Portage In., Res. & Power Co., 95 Utah 1, 11-16, 72 Pac. (2d) 648 (1937). 507Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulley, 53 Nev. 163, 171-173, 295 Pac. 772 (1931). ""Regarding the consideration of water quality, see Cal. Water Code § § 1242.5 and 1257 (West Supp. 1970) discussed in chapter 7 in note 621 and at note 975, respectively. 509"jhe use of ^e water in its passage through his [the riparian owner's] land to operate a power plant thereon is as clearly within his rights as is his right to operate a mill thereon with which to grind grain or to operate any other machinery, than which there is no more ancient or well-established feature of riparian rights." Mentone In. Co. v. Redlands Elec. Light & Power Co., 155 Cal. 323, 327, 100 Pac. 1082 (1909). Use of |