PUB00068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-22- This was the first case in which the Riparian Doctrine which existed in the humid regions of the East, was held to be not applicable to the necessities of an arid region. The question of Riparian Ownership vs. The Doctrine of Appropria- \:tion was definitely decided 10 years later in the case of Coffin vs. The i.et'thand DHch C.mpany, wherein the Supreme Court of Colorado announced the Doctrine of Appropriation as being the only doctrine applicable to this State. . The foregoing provlslons of the Constitution which are unique, con- stitute the basis upon which the irrigation laws, Court decisions and procedure relative to the administration of same, are founded. In 1879, the Legislature enacted the so-called "Irrigation Statute" to give effect to the aforementioned provisions of our Constitution. In 1881, the above Act was supplemented by such additional pro- visions as "experience had demonstrated to be expedient and necessary to the welfare of the agricultural interests and the quiet, orderly and economical distribution of the waters of the State." Our Supreme Court has held that an appropriation of water is an "Intent to take for some useful purpose, accompanied by .some open physical demonstration of the intent." The Court has also held that it is an "Incorporeal hereditament;" that is, "sometiling that may be subject to being inherited." 1 ./ A water right in this State is also a "usufruct" which means, "the right to use some tiling belonging to another without materially impair- ing the substance thereof." The Courts have also held that its con- tinued enjoyment is dependent upon reasonably continuous beneficial use thereof. It is a property right, and may be lost through abandonment which, however, is a matter or question of intent that must be proven. In Wyoming and some other western States, the established non-use of water for irrigation and possibly for other beneficial uses, over a given period of years, constitutes abandonment. In this State, a water right is not necessarily appurtenant or Vattached to any particular piece of land to which it has been applied. Undpr our Constitution, one does not own the water; he merely has the right to take from the source of supply;-sufficient water ~oJi~et Yirr::a.all.rn.e~ds-iJHhinthe--l-imit--Gf..his--d ecree~ .~l'1cljn . S\c: c ordang,>-..wi th the da te .of .pJ:'wfi:t;y-thereni' -a;s .,sta:blisnedbytl16 .. Court. Any time he does not need the entire amount. of water .aecreed to his ditch, he must leave the remainder in the stream for the use of others who may be in . need of it. , Authority to determine questions of the relative rights of appro~ priators, is vested exclusively i.n the several District Courts of our State, 'which have original jurisdiction over such matters. These adjudication proceedings are not ordinary court proceedings, but are in the nature of 1;rha t is known as "sui generis," which means "unique or peculiar in itself, or of its own kind."