OCR Text |
Show ABANDONMENT AND STATUTORY FORFEITURE 263 accompanying water right, and subsequently repurchased the land without the water right and irrigated it with rented water, was held to have abandoned his original right of appropriation and to have initiated a new right in connection with the renting of water.34 Being a question of intent, abandonment is to be determined with reference to the conduct of the parties.35 As said by the South Dakota Supreme Court:36 Conduct may support an inference of such an intention. While abandonment of a valuable water right should not be lightly implied, public interests require that this natural resource be applied to a beneficial use by the holder of such a right, or that it be rendered available for appropriation and use by others. Thus the court may conclude that the conduct of the parties "showed that they had no intention to abandon."37 Or the court may find that during a certain period certain ditches were "neglected, and probably used but little during one or more of the seasons; but we cannot say that the evidence sufficiently establishes an intention to abandon either of them, or the right to water acquired thereby."38 The effect of long continued failure of an appropriator to use his water upon the determination of an issue of abandonment of the water right is discussed below under the subtopic "Relation of nonuse to intent." Act of relinquishment of possession.-The intent to abandon the water right must be accompanied by an actual relinquishment of its possession, that is, a cessation of control and use of the water. The intent to abandon the right and the relinquishment of possession must coincide.39 In 1904, the Supreme Court of Utah stated, "It is a well-settled principle of law that in order to constitute an abandonment there must be an intent to abandon, coupled with some external act of relinquishment by which the intent is carried out."40 "In such cases," it was said in a later California case, "the abandonment is accomplished by the affirmative acts of the claimant or user or by his failure to make use of that which he has claimed."41 The general principle has been declared in various other decisions.42 "Brockman v. Grand Canal Co., 8 Ariz. 451, 452, 76 Pac. 602 (1904). "Miller v. Wheeler, 54 Wash. 429, 435, 103 Pac. 641 (1909). uCundy v. Weber, 68 S. Dak. 214, 225, 300 N.W. 17 (1941). "Gillv.Malan, 29 Utah 431, 437, 82 Pac. 471 (1905). 3tSieberv. Frink, 7 Colo. 148, 153-154, 2 Pac. 901 (1884). 39 Thomas v. Bell, 66 Mont. 161,167, 213 Pac. 597 (1923). "Promontory Ranch Co. v. Argile, 28 Utah 398, 407-408, 79 Pac. 47 (1904). "Helvey v. United States Bldg. & Loan Assn. of Los Angeles, 81 Cal. App. (2d) 647, 650, 184 Pac. (2d) 919 (1947). "Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irr. Co., 35 Idaho 549, 555, 208 Pac. 241 (1922); State v. Nielsen, 163 Nebr. 372, 381, 79 N.W. (2d) 721 (1956); In re Willow Creek, 74 Orcg. 592, 641-642, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915); Cundy v. Weber, 68 S. Dak. |