OCR Text |
Show 638 EXERCISE OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 25,000 horsepower.226 In Wyoming, with various exceptions, water rights for the direct use of the natural unstored flow of any stream cannot be detached from the purpose for which acquired.227 Some judicial points. -"The owner may change the use of the water to any other beneficial use, so long as the change does not interfere with the vested rights of others."228 From early times, this has been a well-recognized judicial rule.229 Where the water rights statute provides a procedure for making such change, it must be followed by the appropriator.230 Many changes in purpose of use were made in the early years of water uses in the mining States, such as California and Montana, as a consequence of the "playing-out" of placer-mining claims and contemporaneous development of agriculture under irrigation and of other industries as well. In California, severe restrictions on hydraulic mining in areas tributary to the Sacramento River were eventually imposed because of widespread damage from debris. A succinct and informative account of use of water in mining in California from the earliest uses to 1960 is given in a 1960 work by S. T. Harding.231 With respect to changes in use of the early mining appropriations, he stated that extensive revival of hydraulic mining does not appear probable under existing conditions and that: "The water supplies formerly used for hydraulic mining are not largely in use for power and irrigation at locations below the elevations of the main gravel areas."232 226 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-146(B) (1956). See § 45-172 (Supp. 1970) relating to changes in place of water use which also contains references to certain purposes of use. "7Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-2 to -4 (1957) and -213 (Supp. 1969). The various exceptions are summarized in note 206, supra. 228Kinney, S. C, "A Treatise on the Law of Irrigation and Water Rights," 2d ed., vol. 4, § 768 (1912), quoted inBlanchardv.Hartley, 111 Oreg. 308, 312, 226 Pac. 436 (1924), and In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915). Although he can change the purpose of his appropriation, he cannot increase the quantity to the injury of existing subsequent appropriators, and he will be subject to the same rule after the change as before: Manning v. Fife, 17 Utah 232, 238, 54 Pac. Ill (1898). See also W. S. Ranch Co. v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 79 N. Mex. 65, 439 Pac. (2d) 714, 715 (1968). 229Atchison v. Peterson, 87 U. S. 507, 514 (1874); Gallagher v. Montedto Valley Water Co., 101 Cal. 242, 246, 35 Pac. 770 (1894); In re Alpowa Creek, 129 Wash. 9, 16-17, 224 Pac. 29 (1924). ™ Oliver v. Skinner and Lodge, 190 Oreg. 423, 448-449, 226 Pac. (2d) 507 (1951). "'Harding, S. T., "Water in California," ch. 4, pp. 61-70 (1960). 232In several early California cases in which the right to change purpose of use was mentioned but was not in issue, the supreme court either withheld expression of opinion, Maeris v. Bicknell, 7 Cal. 261, 263 (1857), or did express opinion that the change was not an abandonment of the right, McDonald v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Min. Co., 13 Cal. 220, 236-237 (1859); Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 26, 33-34 (1867). Positive expressions of approval came later. Change from mining to irrigation and domestic, Happy Valley Land & Water Co. v. Nelson, 169 Cal. 694, 696, 147 Pac. 966 (1915). For some Montana changes: Mining to irrigation, Meagher v. Hardenbrook, 11 Mont. 385, 28 Pac. 451 (1891); mining and agricultural to municipal, Spokane Ranch |