OCR Text |
Show IDAHO 271 No particular time element is involved, but the intent to abandon must be shown by clear and convincing evidence,100 and this intent cannot be inferred from circumstances over which the user had no control.101 Possession of a water right by a cotenant is presumed to be possession for all and no abandonment will result where the water is used by one or more of the cotenants.102 C. ADVERSE USE In Idaho, a water user may lose a water right, and another party gain title, under the doctrine of adverse possession.103 However, the law does not favor acquisition of water rights of another by adverse use, and to establish such use it must be shown that the use of the water was open, notorious, hostile, continuous, uninterrupted, and exclusive of the use of the rightful owner, and under a claim of right by the adverse user, during the entire adverse use period, which is 5 years in the State of Idaho.104 The party claiming a right by ad- verse use has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he has established such a right.105 But, once acquired, title by adverse use is as valid and complete as any other.106 d. estoppel Where a user stands idle for a long period of time, with full knowledge of the facts concerning the respective rights of the par- ties, and acquiesces in the use of water by another, he may be estop- ped from asserting his claim where his actions have misled the other water user to his injury.107 e. MISCELLANEOUS Other questions, though not involving a "loss" of the water right itself, sometimes arise, particularly concerning control and use of waters sometimes classified as salvaged, developed, waste, or return waters. They deserve but brief mention. (1) jSaved or salvaged water.-As a general principle, the Idaho Supreme Court has announced that where an individual has, in fact, made additional water available through a savings program, he is entitled to use this increase on the theory that he is entitled to the benefit of his effort.108 This water, except for the efforts of the party effecting the salvage, would be lost from the system. However, the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming to have salvaged water to show by competent evidence that the water which he claims to have salvaged is not a source of supply for the rights of prior appropriators.109 ™ Perry v. Reynolds, 63 Idaho 457. 122 P. 2d 508 (1942). 101 Hodges v. Trail Creek Irr. Co., 78 Idaho 10, 297 P. 2d 525 (1956). 103 Washington County Irr. Diat. v. Talboy, 55 Idaho 382, 43 P. 2d 943 (1935). Ms Brassard v. Morgan, 7 Idaho 215, 61 Pac. 1031 (1900), ** Harris v. Chapman, 51 Idaho 283, 5 P. 2d 733 (1931). 105Loosli v. Heseman, 66 Idaho 469, 162 P. 2d 393 (1945). 106Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Smith, 48 Idaho 734, 285 Pac. 474 (1930). 107 Hillcrest Irr. Dist. v. Nampa & Meridan Irr. Dist., 57 Idaho 403, 66 P. 2d 115 (1937). i<»Reno v. Richards, 32 Idaho 1, 178 Pac. 81 (1918). 109 Hill & Oauchay v. Green, 47 Idaho 157, 274 Pac. 110 (1928). |