| OCR Text |
Show 368 SUMMARIES OF THE STATE WATER RIGHTS SYSTEMS sustained the constitutionality of both the general appropriation statute21 and the supplemental stockwatering act of 1925, noted later.22 Before performing any work in connection with a proposed appropriation, the intending appropriator must make an application to the State Engineer for a permit. A notice of application is published, and any interested party may file a protest and obtain a hearing on it before the State Engineer. The holder of an approved application, or permit, is required to perform certain acts and to make certain reports. After he completes proof of beneficial use, the State Engineer issues a certificate to evidence his appropriation.23 The expressed intention of the legislature is that this procedure is the exclusive method for making an appropriation of stream water in Nevada. The statute provides that water may be appropriated for beneficial use as provided therein and not otherwise.24 It provides further that no prescriptive right can be acquired to use any water to which a forfeited right had attached, or to any public water either appropriated or unappropriated, but that any right to appropriate any such water shall be initiated by first applying to the State Engineer for a permit to appropriate the same as provided in the statute and not otherwise.2^ The water rights statute provides that the water of all sources of supply within the boundaries of the State belongs to the public and, subject to existing rights, may be appropriated for beneficial use.26 The statute does not purport to list all uses of water for which appropriative rights may be acquired, but it specifies certain information that must be included in appropriations for certain uses-irrigation, power, municipal, mining, stockwatering, and storage.27 Moreover, it recognizes recreational purposes as beneficial uses of water.28 Additional purposes that have been recognized in Nevada by- the Federal courts include culinary and domestic, mining, and milling connected with mining.29 Use of water for irrigating pasture and wild hay is a beneficial purpose.30 21 Humboldt Lovelock Irr. Light & Power Co. v. Smith, 25 Fed. Supp. 571, 575 (D. Nev. 1938). 22In re Calvo, 50 Nev. 125, 131-141, 253 Pac. 671 (1927). "Nev. Rev. Stat. §§533.325 to .435 (Supp. 1973). 24Id. §533.030. 25Id. §533.060. 26Id. §§533.025 and .030. Beneficial use of water is declared to be a public use. Id. §5 33.050. "Id. §533.340. 2SId. §533.030. "Silver Peak Mines v. Valcalda, 79 Fed. 886, 890 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897); Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 98-99, 113 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897). In the Union Mill case, the court stated that there was no superiority as between water rights for irrigation and those for mining and milling. 81 Fed. at 99. 30 Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Oakley Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 30, 33 (9th Cir. 1917); Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Read, 5 Fed. (2d) 466, 468 (9th Cir. 1925). Where, however, water was used to irrigate native grasses on uncultivated "sagebrush land," and the irrigation did not "serve largely to promote their growth," the water use |
