| OCR Text |
Show 480 NEVADA case validated the appropriation of water by a trespasser,98 but the court has pointed out that a prospective appropriator has no right to go upon lands of another without permission of the landowner." A Nevada statute provides that water is appurtenant to the place of use, subject to the right to change under prescribed conditions.100 Appurtenance has also been recognized by the court,101 but in an early case (decided before the present statute was enacted) it was held that use of water by a trespasser on land he did not own did not make the water appurtenant to the land.102 In the case of mutual irrigation companies, the shares of stock are appurtenant to the land of the shareholder.103 Water which is appurtenant to the land passes upon a conveyance of the real property, even though water rights were not expressly mentioned in the deed conveying the land.104 d. TYPES OP USE RECOGNIZED Water may be appropriated for any beneficial use. The Nevada statute does not define the limit or the extent of the uses which may be recognized as beneficial, but does specify certain information which must be included in an application for irrigation, power, mu- nicipal, mining, and stock-watering purposes.105 By recent amend- ment to the water code, recreation is declared to be a beneficial use.100 An irrigation right has been recognized for the use of water to grow pasture and wild hay,107 but a Federal court decision failed to recognize a right where water was diverted onto a sagebrush area and the resulting growth of grasses was scanty and not materially in- creased by the irrigation.108 A use, to qualify as beneficial, need not necessarily be made of the water by the appropriator himself. In many instances in the Western States the policy has been to encourage ditch companies and similar entities to invest the capital necessary to divert and trans- port water for delivery to miners and farmers, particularly where the users could not afford to construct the facilities necessary to con- voy the water from the stream to the place of use.109 Nevada has a special statutory provision relating to watering range livestock. Watering livestock is declared to be a beneficial use, and water may be appropriated for this purpose, but no such appropri- ation will be allowed in close proximity to a watering place where there are existing rights to water range livestock if the proposed ap- propriation would impair the value of grazing use or the existing water right.110 98 Smith v. Logan, 18 Nev. 149, 1 Pac. 678 (1883). MBidleman v. Short, 38 Nev. 467, ISO Pac. 834 (1915). 100 Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.040. 101 Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914). 102 Smith v. Logan, 18 Nev. 149, 1 Pac. 678 (1883). 103 Pacific States Savings & Loan Corp. v. Schmitt, 103 F. 2d 1002 (CCA. 9th 1939). ^¦Zolezei v. Jackson, 72 Nev. 150, 297 P. 2d 1081 (1951). 105 Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.340. 108 Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.030. Jot Rodgers v. Pitt, 129 Fed. 932 (D. Nev. 1904). 108 vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 9 (CCA. 9th 1917). Jo9 Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914) ; Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Service Commission, 300 Fed. 645 (D. Nev. 1921). no Nev. Rev. Stat., sees. 533.485 to 533.510 ; Nev. Rev. Stat., sees. 536.010 to 536.110. |
