OCR Text |
Show CHANGE IN EXERCISE OF WATER RIGHT 635 locality to another.209 In the earliest California decisions, the rule with respect to change of place of use was stated without the limitation of no injury to the rights of others.210 That essential limitation, which was recognized promptly by the California courts in connection with rights to change one's point of diversion and which is general in the West, came later. It was declared in an Oregon decision that the rule allowing a change in place of use may be properly applied only if the new place of use is equivalent in area and water requirements to the original place of use-that there be a continuing intention to irrigate a well defined acreage. "If the intention to irrigate Whiteacre is abandoned before the intention to irrigate Blackacre becomes fixed, the water right is lost." If such a lapse in intent occurs, the formation of a new intention to irrigate other lands marks the beginning of a new appropriation.211 In another stream adjudication, this court held that the extension of a ditch to additional land did not appear under the evidence to be an enlargement or a new appropriation, but rather completion of application of the water to beneficial use with due diligence and within a reasonable time-in other words, gradual development as contemplated when the appropriation was made212 A change in place of use, lawfully made, does not work a forfeiture and is not an abandonment of the water right.213 Even an injurious change, though subject to challenge by the injured party, does not affect the validity of the appropriative right-at least in the absence of a statute declaring a forfeiture under such conditions.214 Under the statute,215 said the Oregon Supreme Court, it is a condition precedent to exercise of the right to change the place of use of water specified in an adjudication proceeding that the holder of the right make application to the State Engineer and obtain his approval of the change.216 Respecting the Idaho statute,217 the supreme court of that State held that the procedure therein must be followed where the statute applies, and that if it is not applicable the owner of the water right may proceed ina court of equity.218 *09Maeris v. Bicknell, 7 Cal. 261, 263 (1857). 210Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 26,33-34 (1867), criticized in Fullerv. Swan River Placer Mining Co., 12 Colo. 12, 16-19, 19 Pac. 836 (1888). ail/n re Umatilla River, 88 Oreg. 376, 396-397, 168 Pac. 922 (1917), 172 Pac. 97 (1918). 212/« re SilviesRiver, 115 Oreg. 27,49, 237 Pac. 322 (1925). il3In re Johnson, Appeal from Department of Reclamation, 50 Idaho 573, 579, 300 Pac. 492 (1931). *14Hansen v.Larsen, 44 Mont. 350, 353, 120 Pac. 229 (1911). 215Oreg. Rev. Stat. § § 540.510-.530 (Supp. 1969). 216Broughton v. Stricklin, 146 Oreg. 259, 271, 28 Pac. (2d) 219 (1933), 30 Pac. (2d) 332 (1934). al7Idaho Code Ann. § § 42-108 and -222 (Supp. 1969). 21tFirst Security Bank of Blackfoot v. State, 49 Idaho 740, 744, 745, 291 Pac. 1064 (1930). "The statute empowering the commissioner of reclamation to authorize a |