OCR Text |
Show LARAMIE RIVER LITIGATION 667 where there is greater humidity, such as Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, and Tennessee. Both States were Territories long before they were admitted into the Union as States and while the territorial con- dition continued were under the full dominion of the United States. At first the United States owned all the lands in both and it still owns and is offering for disposal millions of acres in each. Turning to the decisions of the courts of last resort in the two States, we learn that the same doctrine respecting the diversion and use of the waters of natural streams has prevailed in both from the be- ginning and that each State attributes much of her development and prosperity to the practical operation of this doctrine. The relevant views of the origin and nature of the doctrine, as shown in these decisions, may be summarized as follows: The common-law rule re- specting riparian rights in flowing water never obtained in either State. It always was deemed inapplicable to their situation and climatic conditions. The earliest settlers gave effect to a different rule whereby the waters of the streams were regarded as open to appro- priation for irrigation, mining and other beneficial purposes. The diversion from the stream and the application of the water to a bene- ficial purpose constituted an appropriation, and the appropriator was treated as acquiring a continuing right to divert and use the water to the extent of his appropriation, but not beyond what was reason- ably required and actually used. This was deemed a property right and dealt with and respected accordingly. As between different ap- propriations from the same stream, the one first in time was deemed superior in right, and a completed appropriation was regarded as effective from the time the purpose to make it was definitely formed and actual work thereon was begun, provided the work was carried to completion with reasonable diligence. This doctrine of appropri- ation, prompted by necessity and formulated by custom, received early legislative recognition in both Territories and was enforced in their courts. When the States were admitted into the Union it re- ceived further sanction in their constitutions and statutes and their courts have been uniformly enforcing it. [Citing cases.] As the United States possessed plenary authority over Colorado and Wyoming while they were Territories and has at all times owned the public lands therein, we turn next to its action. The Act of July 26,1866, c. 262, § 9, U Stat. 251, contained a section providing: "Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowl- edged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same." The occasion for this provision and its pur- pose and effect were extensively considered by this court in the cases of Atehison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507, and Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670, the conclusions in both being shown in the following ex- cerpt from the latter, pp. 681-682: "In the late case of AtcMson v. Peterson^ we had occasion to con- sider the respective rights of miners to running waters on the mineral lands of the public domain; and we there held that by the custom which had obtained among miners in the Pacific States and Terri- |