OCR Text |
Show CHANGE IN EXERCISE OF WATER RIGHT 637 with authority to interfere in the affairs and self-government of an irrigation district by granting an application to make such change from one area to another within the district. This is a judicial, not administrative, function.222 Purpose of Use Some statutory situations.-Most of the water rights statutes authorize changes in purpose or character of use of appropriated water along with changes in point of diversion and place of use, and generally subject to the same qualifications and restrictions. There are several exceptions. The legislatures of Idaho, Nebraska, and Texas do not expressly authorize changes of use. However, in answer to an objector who had not initiated his own appropriation until after a change in kind of use had been made, the Idaho Supreme Court stated that a change from one kind of mining, or from one use in mining to another use, did not invalidate an appropriation for mining purposes.223 In 1905, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the purpose of use of water under an appropriation made before the water rights statute was enacted could be changed from power to irrigation, so long as the water continued to be put to beneficial use.224 No further litigation on this matter in the Nebraska Supreme Court has come to attention. In Texas, the right to make changes in purpose of use under administrative control would seem to be implied by the abundant authority conferred by the legislature upon the Texas Water Rights Commission with respect to the issuance of and control over water permits.225 The statutory provisions in Arizona respecting changes in purpose of use are that administrative approval is required for any change from domestic, municipal, or irrigation purposes, and legislative authorization is required for a change that contemplates generating hydroelectrical energy of more than 222Wenatchee Reclamation Dist. v. Titchenal, 175 Wash. 398, 402-404, 27 Pac. (2d) 734 (1933). "3Zeziv. Lightfoot, 57 Idaho 707, 711-712, 68 Pac. (2d) 50 (1937). "^Farmers' & Merchants' In. Co. v. Gothenburg Water Power & In. Co., 73 Nebr. 223, 226-227, 102 N. W. 487 (1905). The change to irrigation was made both before and after the downstream appropriation was made, but the statement of facts is not clear as to the extent of actual injury from the change of use and extension of the ditches after the junior claimant initiated its right. Nor is the question of injury to junior appropriators mentioned in the opinion, aside from the point that the evidence disclosed diversion of no more water than was originally appropriated. "5Hutchins, Wells A., "The Texas Law of Water Rights," pp. 287-290 (1961). Clark v. Briscoe In. Co., 200 S. W. (2d) 674, 682-685 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947). The court held squarely that there was implicit in the constitutional and statutory laws a vesting in the State agency of the continuing duty of supervision over the distribution and use of water, carrying with it the requirement that any substantial change in use or place of use not authorized in the original permit must have the administrative approval. Tex. Water Rignts Common, "Rules, Regulations and Modes of Procedure," rules 605.2(1 )(e) and 610.1(c) (1970 Rev., Jan. 1970). |