OCR Text |
Show 726 UTAH should be allowed to overcome this presumption by clear and con- vincing evidence showing that the water right was intended by the parties to be appurtenant and that the grantor intended to transfer it with the land.83 D. TYPES OF USE RECOGNIZED Water may be appropriated for any useful and beneficial purpose. Beneficial uses expressly recognized by the Utah Supreme Court include domestic, stockwatering, irrigation, municipal, power, manu- facturing, mining, and fish culture.84 However, the Utah court held in one early decision that there could be no valid appropriation of water for unregulated irrigation of unenclosed and unoccupied public domain for the propagation of wild waterfowl.85 E. PREFERENCES AMONG USES (1) At approval stage.-There is no express preference entitling one use to a preference over others when competing applications are filed for the same water. However, the Utah statute does provide that an application may be rejected if it would interfere with the more beneficial use of the water or would prove detrimental to the public welfare.86 In this regard, the Utah court affirmed the ap- proval by the State engineer of a subsequent application for a large multipurpose project over a prior application filed for power pur- poses, where the State engineer concluded that it was in the public interest to take such action. The prior application was actually ap- proved but was made subordinate to the junior (later) filing.87 (2) Reservation of water for future projects.-The Governor, upon recommendation of the State engineer, may suspend the right to appropriate water from specific sources in order to preserve the unappropriated water for use by irrigation districts, organized agri- cultural water users, or for any\use whatsoever, when he concludes that such action would be for the general public welfare.88 (3) Apportioning water in time of shortage.-While a prior ap- propriator under the appropriation doctrine is allowed to receive his entire supply before a junior appropriator is entitled to receive any water, Utah does have a statute which somewhat modifies this concept. In times of scarcity, domestic use shall have priority over use for all other purposes, and agricultural use shall have prefer- ence over all uses except domestic.89 These preferences have never been exercised, and, if they were, compensation presumably would have to be paid to users divested of their water supply. 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers A. CHANGES ALLOWED The Utah statute allows changes in point of diversion, place of use, and nature of use of appropriated water. To accomplish such t* Hatch v. Adams, 7 U. 2d 73, 318 P. 2d 633 (1957). ^Hutchins and Jensen, The Utah Law of Water Rights, 23 (1965). ^Lake Shore Duck Club v. Lake View Duck Olub, 50 Utah 76. 166 Pac. 309 (1917). M Utah Code Ann., sec. 73-3-8. * Tanner v. Bacon, 103 Utah 494, 136 P. 2d 957 (1943). 88 Utah Code Ann., sec. 73-6-1. 89 Utah Code Ann., sec. 73-3-21. |