Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130802
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:49:41+00:00

Document:
CHANGE IN EXERCISE OF WATER RIGHT 633 applicant has the general burden of showing that no impairment of vested rights will result from the change, the person opposing such application must fail if the evidence does not disclose that his rights will be impaired."199 Uninjured party may not complain.-The holder of a water right who cannot show injury thereto as a result of a proposed change in another's point of diversion has no cause for complaint.200 Nor can one who can assert no legal right to the water complain of such a change.201 Place and Purpose of Use Place of Use Some statutory situations.-In a majority of Western States, the water rights statutes provide for making changes in both place and purpose of use of appropriated water. Generally, the authorizations, procedures, and restrictions upon exercise of the right of change apply to each of the three major functions-diversion, place of use, and purpose. In most instances, approval of the State administrative agency is required.202 However, there are some exceptions. A Nevada statute provides that all appropriated water shall remain appurtenant to the place of use except that it may be transferred to another place of use whenever it becomes impracticable to use the water beneficially or economically at the place to which it is appurtenant. Such a transfer will not result in loss of priority 203 Permission of the State administrative agency is 199Salt Lake City v. Boundary Springs Water Users Assn., 2 Utah (2d) 141,143-144, 270 Pac. (2d) 453 (1954). 200Gallagher v. Montecito Valley Water Co., 101 Cal. 242, 246, 35 Pac. 770 (1894);In re Deschutes River and Tributaries, 134 Oreg. 623, 639-640, 286 Pac. 563, 294 Pac. 1049 (1930); Tanner v. Provo Res. Co., 99 Utah 139, 152-153, 98 Pac. (2d) 695 (1940); Sain v. Montana Power Co., 20 Fed. Supp. 843, 848 (D. Mont. 1937). 201 Vineland In. Dist. v. Azusa Irrigating Co., 126 Cal. 486, 495-497, 58 Pac. 1057 (1899); Mettler v. Ames Realty Co., 61 Mont. 152,158, 201 Pac. 702 (1921). a02Prior to 1969, Colorado, which is one State requiring no permit to appropriate water, had legislation which applied specifically only to changes in points of diversion. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 148-9-22 to 148-9-25 (1963). But in many cases, the supreme court has sanctioned changes in place of use if no injury results to vested rights of other appropriators. "We take it that no citations are necessary in this connection." Hassler v. Fountain Mutual In. Co., 93 Colo. 246, 249, 26 Pac. (2d) 102 (1933). This is an inherent property right, long existing as an incident of ownership and always enforceable so long as the vested rights of others are not infringed. Brighton Ditch Co. v. Englewood, 124 Colo. 366, 372-373, 237 Pac. (2d) 116 (1951). In 1969, §§ 148-9-22 to 148-9-25 were repealed and new provisions enacted permitting "change of water rights," which is defined as a change in type, place, or time of use or place of diversion. Colo. Laws 1969, ch. 373, § § 1 and 20(1), pp. 1202, 1207-1212, and 1223, Rev. Stat. Ann. § § 148-21-18 to 148-21-21 and 148-21-3(11) (Supp. 1969). 203Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.040 (Supp. 1969). This provision does not apply to ditch or canal companies which have appropriated water for transmission to lands of private persons at an annual charge.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 148
 § 533