|
The Desert Land Act 'effected a severance of all waters upon the public domain, not theretofore
<br />appropriated, from the land itself.' California- Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S.
<br />142, 158 , 55 S.Ct. 725, 729. It extended the right of appropriation to any declarant who reclaimed desert
<br />land and provided: 'All surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use, together with the
<br />water of all lakes, rivers and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall
<br />remain and be held free for the appropria ion and use of the public for irrigation, mining and manufacturing
<br />purposes subject to existing rights.' See Ickes v. Fox, 300 U.S. 82, 95 , 57 S.Ct. 412, 416; Brush v.
<br />Commissioner, 300 U.S. 352,367, 57 S.Ct. 495, 499, 108 A.L.R. 1428
<br />Sec. 8 of the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C.A. 383, 372 provided: 'That nothing in this Act shall be construed
<br />as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating
<br />to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired
<br />thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in
<br />conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the
<br />Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream
<br />or the waters [325 U.S. 589, 613] thereof. Provided, That the right to the use of water acquired under the
<br />provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the
<br />measure, and the limit of the right.' (Italics added.)
<br />The Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 3 of the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C.A. 416, withdrew from public
<br />entry certain public lands in Nebraska and Wyoming which were required for the North Platte Project and
<br />the Kendrick Project. Initiation of both projects was accompanied by filings made pursuant to 8 in the name
<br />of the Secretary of the Interior for and on behalf of the United States. Those filings were accepted by the
<br />state officials as adequate under state law. They established the priority dates for the projects. There were
<br />also applications to the States for permits to construct canals and ditches. They described the land to be
<br />served. The orders granting the applications fixed the time for completion of the canal, for application of
<br />the water to the land, and for proof of appropriation. Individual water users contracted with the United
<br />States for the use of project water. These contracts were later assumed by the irrigation districts. Irrigation
<br />districts submitted proof of beneficial use to the state authorities on behalf of the project water users. The
<br />state authorities accepted that proof and issued decrees and certificates in favor of the individual water
<br />users. The certificates named as appropriators the individual landowners. They designated the number of
<br />acres included, the use for which the appropriation was made, the amount of the appropriation, and the
<br />priority date. The contracts between the United States and the irrigation districts provided that after the
<br />stored water was released from the reservoir it was under the control of the appropriate state officials.
<br />All of these steps make plain that those projects were designed, constructed and completed according to the
<br />[325 U.S. 589, 614] pattern of state law as provided in the Reclamation Act. We can say here what was
<br />said in Ickes v. Fox, supra, 300 U.S. pages 94, 95, 57 S.Ct. page 416: 'Although the government diverted,
<br />stored, and distributed the water, the contention of petitioner that thereby ownership of the water or water
<br />rights became vested in the United States is not well founded. Appropriation was made not for the use of
<br />the government, but, under the Reclamation Act, for the use of the landowners; and by the terms of the law
<br />and of the contract already referred to, the water rights became the property of the landowners, wholly
<br />distinct from the property right of the government in the irrigation works. Compare Murphy v. Kerr, D. C.,
<br />296 F. 536, 544, 545. The government was and remained simply a carrier and distributor of the water (Id.),
<br />with the right to receive the sums stipulated in the contracts as reimbursement for the cost of construction
<br />and annual charges for operation and maintenance of the works.'
<br />The property right in the water right is separate and distinct from the property right in the reservoirs, itches
<br />or canals. The water right is appurtenant to the land, the owner of which is the appropriator. The water right
<br />is acquired by perfecting an appropriation, i.e., by an actual diversion followed by an application within a
<br />reasonable time of the water to a beneficial use. See Murphy v. Kerr, D.C., 296 F. 536, 542, 544, 545;
<br />Commonwealth Power Co. v. State Board, 94 Neb. 613, 143 N.W. 937; Kersenbrock v. Boyes, 95 Neb.
<br />407, 145 N.W. 837. Indeed 8 of the Reclamation Act provides as we have seen that'the right to the use of
<br />water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use
<br />shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.'
<br />We have then a direction by Congress to the Secretary of the Interior to proceed in conformity with state
<br />laws in appropriating water for irrigation purposes. We have a [325 U.S. 589, 615] compliance with that
<br />direction. Pursuant to that procedure individual landowners have become the appropriators of the water
<br />
|