WSP03920 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 00.'9 -28- When, ho'.ever, the art I f I c I a I (or man-made) structures are abandoned or forfeIted by non-use. the United States as the o~ner of the real property succeeds to the ownership of the structures (as In the case of al I fixtures) and may put the water from the developed source to beneficial use on the public domain. c, Springs and Water Holes Which are Tributaries of Streams .~;~ In Its unreported decision In Hyruo v, Kleo~.46/ the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to restrict the effect of the 1926 withdrawal, citing a 1927 Solicitor's Opinion for support.471 by holding that the 1926 withdrawal did not apply to a spring If-rts flow rose to the dignity of a running stream and was tributary to a natural water course. The Hyrup court did not define the term "tributary" In the opinion. In fact, there Is no Indication that the court consIdered placing any meaning on the term .other than Its common usage. This could be an Important Issue when viewed against a backdrop of state laws which attach significantly different meanings to the term, particularly In the context of defining which waters are subject to appropriation under state law.48/ _.~'.:r,.'. 461 Nos. 75-1452 and 76-1767 (loth Clr-., Nov. 7. 1977). 471 Opinion of the Solicitor dated March 8. 1927. The SolIcItor's Opinion referred to In the opinion of the loth Circuit did not. con- trary to the court's assertion, (slip op. pp, 10-1 I). conclude that the Executive Order applied only to springs and water holes which are not tributary to a stream. The opinion did not even address that Issue; rather. It merely stated that the withdrawal could not be used as author- Ity to reserve two tracts bordering on the Henrys Fork River In Wyoming for purposes of stock watering. The Henrys Fork Is a perennial stream tributary to the Green River. It does not arise upon, but only flo,"s through, BLM land. The Solicitor concluded that the 1926 Order did not effect withdrawals of lands bordering perennial rivers since they clearly did not fIt the definition of a "spring" or "water hole." The opInion went on to conclude. however, that the withdrawal did apply to a water hole In the bed of an Intermittent stream. 481 In Colorado, for example, there 15 a presumptIon that all water 15 trIbutary to a natural watercourse and thus subject to appropriation, See Safranek v. L1man. 123 Colo. 330, 228 P.2d 975 (1951); Cline v. WhItten. 150 Colo. 179, 372 P.2d 145 (1962). holding a spring to be part of the stream. See Colo. Rev. Stat. 1973 S 37-92-101 et ~.. and Kuiper v. Lundvall. 187 Colo. 40, 529 P.2d 1328 (974). cert den. 421 U.S. 996 (1975), where the court found that groundwater whlch-;';uld take 178 years to reach a stream was not tributary. ._~ ::.:..1 . "oJ