| OCR Text |
Show NORTH PLATTE RIVER LITIGATION 739 water acquired Wider the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right? (Italics added.) The Secretary of the Interior pursuant to §3 of the Reclamation Act withdrew from public entry certain public lands in Nebraska and Wyoming which were required for the North Platte Project and the Kendrick Project. Initiation of both projects was accompanied by filings made pursuant to §8 in the name of the Secretary of the Interior for and on behalf of the United States. Those filings were accepted by the state officials as adequate under state law. They estab- lished the priority dates for the projects. There were also applications to the States for permits to construct canals and ditches. They de- scribed the land to be served. The orders granting the applications fixed the time for completion of the canal, for application of the water to the land, and for proof of appropriation. Individual water users contracted with the United States for the use of project water. These contracts were later assumed by the irrigation districts. Irrigation districts submitted proof of beneficial use to the state authorities on behalf of the project water users. The state authorities accepted that proof and issued decrees and certificates in favor of the individual water users. The certificates named as appropriators the individual landowners. They designated the number of acres included, the use for which the appropriation was made, the amount of the appropria- tion, and the priority date. The contracts between the United States and the irrigation districts provided that after the stored water was released from the reservoir it was under the control of the appropriate state officials. All of these steps make plain that those projects were designed, con- structed and completed according to the pattern of state law as pro- vided in the Reclamation Act. We can say here what was said in lakes v. Fox, supra, pp. 94-95: "Although the government diverted, stored and distributed the water, the contention of petitioner that thereby ownership of the water or water-rights became vested in the United States is not well founded. Appropriation was made not for the use of the government, but, under the Reclamation Act, for the use of the land owners; and by the terms of the law and of the contract already referred to, the water-rights became the property of the land owners, wholly distinct from the property right of the government in the irrigation works. Compare Murphy v. Kerr, 296 Fed. 536, 544, 545. The government was and remained simply a carrier and distributor of the water (ibid.), with the right to receive the sums stipulated in the contracts as reimbursement for the cost of construction and annual charges for operation and maintenance of the works." The property right in the water right is separate and distinct from the property right in the reservoirs, ditches or canals. The water right is appurtenant to the land, the owner of which is the appropriator. The water right is acquired by perfecting an appropriation, i.e., by an actual diversion followed by an application within a reasonable time of the water to beneficial use. See Murphy v. Kerr, 296 Fed. 536, 542, 544, 545; Commonwealth Power Go. v. State Board, 94 Neb. 613, 143 N.W. 937; Kersenbrock v. Boyes, 95 Neb. 407, 145 N.W. 837. In- deed § 8 of the Reclamation Act provides as we have seen that "the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall |
