OCR Text |
Show 750 on or flowing over or under the surface, but not forming a definite stream, and that he may use the water of a definite natural surface or underground stream so long as it remains on his land but may not prevent its natural flow.229 Acquisition of the right to make beneficial use of any water is in- itiated by making application to the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board for a permit to appropriate the water. On completion of the works a certificate of completion of construction is issued, and on ap- plication of the water to beneficial use, a license to appropriate the water.230 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the procedure for acquiring appropriative rights for irrigation purposes that is unique in Western water law; viz., that a hydrographic survey and court adjudication of existing water rights are conditions precedent to the granting by the State administrator of a valid permit to appropriate water for irrigation.231 The court in 1943 referred to the fact that in Owens v. Snider232 a court decree determining water rights for irrigation under the general water appropriation act had been held to be a condition precedent to the issuance of a permit to irrigate; but decided that a determination of water rights had not been made a preliminary requirement to the issuance by the Conservation Com- mission (predecessor of the Planning and Resources Board) of a permit to a power corporation to develop water power.233 Forfeiture of the appropriative right results from failure to use the water for a period of two years;234 and on abandonment of the use of water appurtenant to land, the water becomes public water subject to appropriation.235 The riparian doctrine has been referred to in various cases decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, chiefly in controversies relating to stream pollution or interference with the natural flow of streams for purposes other than irrigation.236 The court, in a controversy over the use of a pond, formed in a former stream channel, for a fish hatchery and fishing resort, quoted the statute relating to the use by the land- 229 Okla. Stats. 1941, Tit. 60, § 60. 230 Okla. Stats. 1941, Tit. 82, §§ 21 to 59. 881 Gay v. Hicks, 33 Okla. 675, 684-685, 124 Pac. 1077 (1912); Owens v. Snider, 52 Okla. 772, 775, 778-781,153 Pac. 833 (1915). 2811 See supra, n. 231. 288 Grand Hydro v. Grand River Dam Authority, 192 Okla. 693, 695-696, 139 Pac. (2d) 798 (1943). 234 Okla. Stats. 1941, Tit. 82, § 32. 236 Okla. Stats. 1941, Tit. 82, § 34. 234 See Markwardt v. Guthrie, 18 Okla. 32, 37, 54, 90 Pac. 26 (1907); Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Groves, 20 Okla. 101, 111, 93 Pac. 755 (1908); Zalaback v. Kingfisher, 59 Okla. 222, 223, 158 Pac. 926 (1916); Burkett v. Bayes, 78 Okla. 8, 10, 187 Pac. 214 (1918, 1920); Enid v. Brooks, 132 Okla. 60, 61-63, 269 Pac. 241 (1928); Oklahoma City v. Tytenicz, 171 Okla., 519, 520-521, 43 Pac. (2d) 747 (1935); Martin v. British American Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193, 195, 102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940). |