Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130629
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:16:41+00:00

Document:
460 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT view that an agricultural consumer is the appropriator and that the water right attaches to his land.124 The Federal court suit was brought by the water company to restrain the State Public Service Commission from fixing a certain schedule of rates and charges for water to be supplied by the company. The court viewed the statutory language as recognition of the right to appropriate water for the purpose of distribution and sale, and stated that "The theory that the right vests exclusively in the customer is illogical under a statute which declares that the use of the water is not appurtenant to the land on which he uses it."125 (7) New Mexico. The general rule of appurtenance of an appropriative right to the particular land on which the water is applied to beneficial use is recognized in New Mexico.126 However, the supreme court held that a right to the use of water for raising stock on the public domain, although appurtenant to the possessory right in the range land on which the water is being beneficially used, it is not necessarily appurtenant to any particular part of the range; and it is not transferred to a homestead entryman of a part of such range land, as an appurtenance to the land, by virtue of his entry alone.127 An exception to the general rule in New Mexico is provided by statute. It is declared that "all waters appropriated for irrigation purposes, except as otherwise provided by written contract between the owner of the land and the owner of any ditch, reservoir or other works for the storage or conveyance of water, shall be appurtenant to specified lands" owned by the holder of the right to use the water.128 (8) South Dakota. The shares of capital stock of a reorganized irrigation company were held, under the circumstances of a case, to be not appurtenant to land of shareholders. The water rights held by the company were located in the pioneer days, long before enactment of the water code, and were not affected by its enactment. These water rights, the court reasoned, became vested in those who actually located them as distinguished from 124Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 158-166, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914). The issue was whether the company should be enjoined from failing to deliver to a customer the full quantity of water it had been customarily delivering him, so long as he complied with reasonable regulations and paid a reasonable charge. 125Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 300 Fed. 645, 647-652 (D. Nev. 1921). The actual holding of the court was that the reasonable value of the water right, so far as it was used and useful in supplying the company's customers, was a part of the total value on which the company was entitled to a fair return. 126Murphy v. Ken, 296 Fed. 536, 541 (D. N. Mex. 1923); Carlsbad In. Dist. v. Ford, 46 N. Mex. 335, 341, 128 Pac. (2d) 1047 (1942). 127First State Bank of Alamogordo v. McNew, 33 N. Mex. 414, 423-429, 269 Pac. 56 (1928). 12» N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-1-2 (1968).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 75