| OCR Text |
Show REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT 229 of irrigation actually was a detriment to Oliver's rights, but he cannot be permitted to do this."181 (5) Oklahoma. In the first two cases that involved interpretation of the Oklahoma water rights statute, injunctions were sought. The first action was brought (a) to determine the respective rights of the parties to the suit, except the State administrator; and (b) to obtain an injunction restraining the State administrator and defendant Hicks-an appli- cant for a permit to appropriate water-from conducting proceedings the purpose of which was to issue a permit to Hicks in disregard, it was claimed, of the rights of plaintiffs to the use of the water based upon a claim of prior appropriation and beneficial use thereof. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the action of the trial court in dissolving a temporary injunction, holding that the State administrator had no authority to issue a permit to appropriate water for irrigation purposes until after the making of a hydrographic survey and an adjudication of rights in the stream system.182 The second suit was brought by the holder of a permit to appropriate water to restrain certain parties from diverting water upstream. No hydrographic survey and adjudication of rights had been made. On the authority of the earlier cases, the trial court refused plaintiff an injunction and the supreme court affirmed the judgment.183 Since 1963, this requirement-that a hydrographic survey and a determina- tion of water rights are prerequisite to the issuance of a permit to appropriate water for irrigation purposes-is no longer required for appropriating water for irrigation or other purposes,184 and was never extended to the issuance of permits to develop water power.185 (6) The evidence in a contest between two Nebraska districts, which received water through a joint canal diverted under separate appropriations, showed that practices by the defendant district resulted in preventing the plaintiff from receiving all the water to which it was entitled under its appropriation. "The right is clear and it requires no stretch of the imagination to arrive at the conclusion that this kind of damage is irreparable and a remedy at law is inadequate."186 181 Oliver v. Skinner & Lodge, 190 Oreg. 423, 448-449, 226 Pac. (2d) 507 (1951). 182 Gay v. Hicks, 33 Okla. 675, 676, 686-687, 124 Pac. 1077 (1912). li3Owens v. Snider, 52 Okla. 772, 775-778, 781-782, 153 Pac. 833 (1915). 184 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, §§ 11 and 12 (1970); Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Central Okla. Master Conservancy Dist., 464 Pac. (2d) 748 (Okla. 1968). 185Grand-Hydro v. Grand River Dam Authority, 192 Okla. 693, 695-696, 139 Pac. (2d) 798 (1943). lMGeringIrr. Dist. v. Mitchell In. Dist., 141 Nebr. 344, 354-355, 3 N.W. (2d) 566 (1942). The Nebraska Supreme Court had indicated in 1918 that if tenants in common of a canal and water right cannot agree, and one commits an act which prevents or threatens the others in their use of the water to which they are entitled, the courts will protect the right of all as among themselves, by injunction or otherwise. Larned v. Jenkins, 102 Nebr. 796, 798,169 N.W. 723 (1918). |
