| OCR Text |
Show 612 OKLAHOMA On the one hand, the court permitted the district to take advan- tage of the 1963 amendment eliminating adjudication as a condition to perfecting an appropriation right. It did so by characterizing the amendment as a "procedural" change. On the other hand, the upper riparian (Oklahoma City) was not permitted to avail itself of the 1963 amendment authorizing riparians to store their own diffused surface water in the bed of a natural stream. This concession to the riparian owner, had it been made, might seem modest in view of the fact that the rights of riparians were otherwise sharply limited by the 1963 amendment to include domestic uses only. It is regrettable that the 1963 statutes were not employed by the court to settle once and for all the conflicts between the two systems. The ultimate impact of the decision is unclear. The case probably should be limited to the proposition that the storage amendment is void as against a pre-1963 appropriator, but it seems to say that some pre-1963 vested rights are "more vested" than others. 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers By statute, irrigation water rights are expressly made appurtenant to the land on which the water is used.64 The statute provides, how- ever, that if it becomes impracticable to use the water beneficially or economically on the irrigated land, the water right may be severed and simultaneously transferred to other land to which it then be- comes appurtenant without loss of priority. The change can be made only with the approval of the water resources board after notice and hearing and must be accomplished without any detriment to existing rights. Water permits or licenses for purposes other than irrigation are assignable, but no assignment is binding (except as between the parties) unless filed for record in the office of the board of water resources.65 Irrigation water rights cannot be transferred apart from the land to which they are appurtenant except as indicated in the previous paragraph when a severance may be affected, and a transfer of title to land "in any manner whatsoever" carries with it appur- tenant irrigation rights. 3.4 Loss of Rights Forfeiture for 2 years' nonuse was provided for under the 1905 legislation. This was repealed, effective July 5, 1961, when the legis- lature adopted a provision relating to the time within which water must be put to a beneficial use in order to preserve priority. The statute did not apply retroactivity so as to reestablish any right which had previously been forfeited. In 1965, a provision for for- feiture was reenacted, declaring forfeiture for 7 continuous years of nonuse.68 o* Sec. 105.22. 85 Sec. 105.24. 69 Sec. 105.17. |
