OCR Text |
Show ARIZONA 109 of all subsequent applications if the estimated needs of the munici- pality justify it.37 If competing applications are filed for the same available water supply, preference shall be given as follows: (a) do- mestic and municipal use; (b) irrigation and stockwatering; (c) power and mining uses; and (d) recreation and wildlife, including fish.38 Applications for water for generating electric energy in excess of 25,000 horsepower must be authorized by the legislature.39 A per- mit to appropriate water may be assigned, subject to the conditions contained in the permit.40 (3) Perfecting an application.-'Construction of works under an approved application, except under applications by a city or town for municipal use, shall begin within 2 years after the approval of the application and shall be prosecuted with reasonable diligence and be completed within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed 5 years from the date of approval. However, the department, for good cause shown, may extend the time beyond the initial 5-year pe- riod.41 After the water is placed to beneficial use, proof of appro- priation is submitted to the department and a certificate setting forth the details of the water right is issued to the applicant.42 {If) Judicial review of administrative decision.-An applicant or any person whose rights are affected by a decision of the department may, within 60 days after the decision, appeal to the superior court, and the court may modify the decision of the department if it has abused its authority.43 However, the review of the court in such an appeal is limited to matters which were within the jurisdiction of the department to decide initially. Further, the right of prior appro- priators to appeal a department decision is very limited because the department, in approving a junior application, cannot adversely affect prior vested rights-hence, there is no basis for appeal.44 There is some indication that even though the statute provides for a trial de novo, the Arizona court may limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the department's decision.45 (5) Rights-of-Way.-By statute, the owner of irrigable lands is granted the right of eminent domain for the construction of a canal across the lands of another.46 Corporations owning canals and reser- voir systems have a duty similar to that of a common carrier, and to the extent of available capacity must carry water of other users upon payment of proper carriage charges.47 An easement to convey water may be acquired by prescription as well as by grant where the use is for the full period of the statute of limitations governing the acquisition of title to real property.48 37 Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-143. 38 Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-147. 3BAriz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-146. « Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-149. « Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-150. « Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-152. « Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-154. "Beach v. Superior Court of Apache Co., 64 Ariz. 375, 173 P. 2d 79 (1946) ; Ernst v. Superior Court of Apache Co., 82 Ariz. 17, 307 P. 2d fill (1957). « Manning v. Perry, 48 Ariz. 425 62 P. 2d 693 (1936) ; Pretzer v. Lassen, 13 Ariz. App. 553, 479 P. 2d 430 (1971). « Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 45-201. « Whiting v. Lyman Water Co.. 59 Ariz. 121. 124 P. 2d 316, 129 P. 2d 995 (1942). « Stamatis v. Johnson, 71 Ariz. 134, 224 P. 2d 201 (1950). |