OCR Text |
Show 164 constructed works either directly or indirectly, and which depend for their continuance upon the acts of man. Such waters are declared to be primarily private and subject to beneficial use by the owner or developer. It is provided, how- ever, that they shall become subject to appropriation when they have passed beyond the dominion of the developer and have reached a natural stream without having been used by him for a four-year period after their first appearance. But under the statute no appropriator may require the owner or developer to continue such a water supply, except by contract, grant, dedication, or condemnation. In this respect, it incorporates principles similar to those enunciated in the 1916 Arizona opinion in Lambeye v. Garcia.™ Still earlier, Kinney had said in 1912 that a like rule was generally followed in the case of irrigation water which, because of the lay of the land of a prior appropriator, flows on to the land of another.67 Similar principles were applied in United States v. Haga, a case arising in Idaho.68 There, a United States District Court upheld an original appropriator's right to wastage, both in the form of surface run-off and deep percolation, so long as he can identify it and his right has not been abandoned or for- feited by nonuse.69 The Haga opinion was quoted with ap- proval by the United States Supreme Court when it examined rights in seepage waters of the Shoshone Project in Ide v. United States.70 The Court there upheld the right of the United States to straighten and use a ravine to collect return flow from water used for irrigation and to reuse such water.71 In connection with the North Platte Project, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit used like reasoning in holding that an appropriator has a reasonable time within which to reclaim seepage.72 Over 20 years later, similar ques- tions arose in connection with this Project, and the same Court w 18 Ariz. 178, 181-182, 157 Pac. 976, 979 (1916). 67 2 Kinney, Irrigation and Water Rights, § 661, p. 1150 (2d ed. 1912). 88 276 Fed. 41 (D. C. Idaho 1921). 69 276 Fed. at 43-44. 70 263 U. S. 497, 506 (1924). 71263 U. S. at 507. "Ramshorn Ditch Co. v. United States, 269 Fed. 80, 85 (O. A. 8, 1920). |