OCR Text |
Show NEVADA 373 claims are inferior, the senior holder is limited to rights he was enjoying at the time subsequent rights attached. Hence, although the subsequent appropriator acquires only what has not been secured by those prior in time, what he does obtain is as absolute and free from interference as are the rights of his seniors.60 It follows that the first appropriator cannot enlarge his original appropriation beyond his bona fide intent at that time, nor can he make any change in the stream channel, to the injury of the later ones.61 An actual enlargement constitutes a new appropriation. If under natural conditions enough water will reach the headgate of the prior appropriator to be of use to him, he is entitled to have the water flow there.62 But if the quantity of water that would reach this downstream appropriator is too small to be of any substantial benefit, then upstream junior appropriators are not precluded from making use of such quantities as they can divert within their own appropriative rights.63 The water rights statute authorizes water users to rotate the use of water to which they may be collectively entitled. Likewise, a single water user who has lands to which water rights of different priorities attach may rotate the use of the aggregate water supply, when this can be done without injury to lands enjoying earlier priorities, to the end that each user may have an irrigation head of at least 2 cubic feet per second.64 Stored water may be turned into any natural channel or watercourse and claimed for beneficial use below, subject to existing uses, due allowance for losses to be determined by the State Engineer.65 Other sections of the statutes authorize commingling and reclamation of stored water,66 State regulation of such use of the stream,67 and installation of measuring devices for water of an on-channel reservoir, or one located away from a natural stream channel but which requires use of it.68 In the section of the water rights statute pertaining to appurtenance of as among consumers supplied by a commercial irrigation company or other agency, where the appropriation is made by and through such agency. Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 165-166, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914). And the preferential right continues so long as the consumer pays the reasonable charges of the company and conforms to its reasonable regulations. Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Sen. Comm'n, 300 Fed. 645, 648-649 (D. Nev. 1921). 60Proctor v. Jennings, 6 Nev. 83, 87-88, 3 Am. Rep. 240 (1870). 61 Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 106 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897). 62 Tonkin v. Winzell, 27 Nev. 88, 96-97, 99-100, 73 Pac. 593 (1903). 63 Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 119 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897). 64Nev. Rev. Stat. §533.075 (Supp. 1973). Rotation questions were involved in two Federal cases affecting water users in Nevada. Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 121 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897); Anderson v. Bassman, 140 Fed. 14, 21-24, 28, 29 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1905). 65Nev. Rev. Stat. §533.055 (Supp. 1973). 66Id. §533.525. 61 Id. §533.445. 6*Id. §536.010. SeeSchulz v. Sweeney, 19 Nev. 359, 361-362, 11 Pac. 253 (1886). |