OCR Text |
Show 262 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES been completed, "the courts will not lightly decree an abandonment of a property so valuable in a semi-arid region such as this * * *."27 Whether a water right has actually been abandoned "depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding each particular case, tending to prove the essential elements of abandonment, viz., the intent and the acts of the party charged with abandoning such right."28 Both intent and relinquishment of possession are essential to constitute an abandonment of a water right. The intention alone, no matter how definite, is not sufficient. It must be coupled with acts of the appropriator that implement the intent. Nor is mere nonuse of the water more than rebuttable evidence of an intention to abandon the water right. Intent.-The intention not to repossess the water right is an essential feature of its abandonment.29 Abandonment "depends upon proof of an intent to permanently relinquish the possession and enjoyment of a property right."30 This denotes the absolute giving up of the right, "often with the further implication of its surrender to the mercy of something or someone else."31 The intent may be evidenced by the declaration of the party, or may be fairly inferred from his acts.32 "A single act may be of such a character, and done in such manner, and under such circumstances, that an intention to abandon may be inferred from it."33 Thus, one who sold his land with Commercial & Sugar Co. v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 15 Haw. 675, 691 (1904); In re Manse Spring & Its Tributaries, 60 Nev. 280, 286, 108 Pac. (2d) 311 (1940); In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 664, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915); Anson v.Arnett, 250 S.W. (2d) 450, 454 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.); Ramsay v. Gottsche, 51 Wyo. 516, 532, 69 Pac. (2d) 535 (1937); Horse Creek Conservation Dist. v. Lincoln Land Co., 54 Wyo. 320, 335, 92 Pac. (2d) 572 (1939). "Thomas v. Ball, 66 Mont. 161, 167, 213 Pac. 597 (1923); accord, Sander v. Bull, 76 Wash. 1, 6, 135 Pac. 489 (1913). 28Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irr. Co., 35 Idaho 549, 555, 208 Pac. 241 (1922). 29McFarland v. Alaska Perseverance Min. Co., 3 Alaska 308, 337 (1907); Gila Water Co. v. Green, 29 Ariz. 304, 306, 241 Pac. 307 (1925); Wood v. Etiwanda Water Co., 147 Cal. 228, 234, 81 Pac. 512 (1905); Beaver Brook Res. & Canal Co. v. St. Vrain Res. & Fish Co., 6 Colo. App. 130, 136, 40 Pac. 1066 (1895); Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 15 Haw. 675, 691 (1904); Union Grain & Elevator Co. v. McCammon Ditch Co., 41 Idaho 216, 223, 240 Pac. 443 (1925); Atchison v. Peterson, 1 Mont. 561, 565 (1872), affirmed, 87 U.S. 507 (1874); State v. Nielsen, 163 Nebr. 372, 381, 79 N.W. (2d) 721 (1956); In re Manse Spring & Its Tributaries, 60 Nev. 280, 286-287, 289, 290, 108 Pac. (2d) 311 (1940); Borman v. Blackmon, 60 Oreg. 304, 308, 118 Pac. 848 (1911); Edgemont Improvement Co. v.N. S. Tubbs Sheep Co., 22 S. Dak. 142, 145, 115 N.W. 1130 (1908); Anson v. Arnett, 250 S.W. (2d) 450, 454 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.); Deseret Live Stock Co. v. Hooppiania, 66 Utah 25, 32, 239 Pac. 479 (1925); Sander v. Bull, 76 Wash. 1, 6, 135 Pac. 489 (1913); Campbell v. Wyoming Dev. Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 400, 100 Pac. (2d) 124, 102 Pac. (2d) 745 (1940); Valcalda v. Silver Peak Mines, 86 Fed. 90, 95 (9th Cir. 1898). 30Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co., 178 Cal. 450, 455, 173 Pac. 994 (1918). 31 Carrington v. Crandall, 65 Idaho 525, 532, 147 Pac. (2d) 1009 (1944). 32 Gould v. Maricopa Canal Co., 8 Ariz. 429, 448, 76 Pac. 598 (1904). 33Farmers' Irr. Dist. v. Frank, 72 Nebr. 136, 155, 100 N.W. 286 (1904). |