Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130697
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:28:09+00:00

Document:
528 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT sustained the validity of this statute with its requirement for filing a copy of a royalty contract prior to approval of an application to appropriate water. It was apparent, said the court, that the salt found in the waters of the Great Salt Lake was a valuable "mineral." Being navigable, the lake bed belongs to the State subject to Congressional control over navigation in commerce. As such owner, the State is entitled to all valuable minerals in or on such beds; and it is within its authority in providing procedure by which rights to the salt may be acquired from the State government.449 Irrigation Irrigation of cultivated land.-(I) By far the greatest number of controvers- ies over water rights that reached the high courts of the West had to do with rights for the irrigation of cultivated land. (2) Emergence of irrigation. In California, the right to appropriate water for the purpose of irrigating land and to establish the priority of such an appropriation as against a later appropriation for another purpose-in this case mining-was sustained by the supreme court in 1863.450 In a few other early cases, irrigation was involved along with other purposes.451 Before this occurred in California, irrigation water rights were being acquired in various parts of Utah; and they were recognized in Arizona and New Mexico long before. (See, in chapter 7, "Methods of Appropriating Water of Watercourses-Nonstatutory.") The Act of Congress of July 26, 1866, provided for the protection of prior rights to the use of water on the public domain "for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes."452 In a decision construing this statute, the United States Supreme Court recognized the development of such rights "for purposes of agricultural irrigation" as well as for mining on the public domain.453 (3) Crops. An appropriator's water right for irrigation purposes is not limited by the character of crops he raises, unless the soil should be adapted to only one kind of crop or to limited kinds. Ordinarily, he may change the character of crops grown at will.454 **9Deseret Livestock Co. v. State, 110 Utah 239, 242-245, 171 Pac. (2d) 401 (1946). A50Rupley v. Welch, 23 CaL 452, 455-457 (1863). 451 Domestic and irrigation: Crandall v. Woods, 8 CaL 136, 144 (1857); Hanson v. McCue, 42 Cal. 303, 306-307 (1871); domestic, milling, and irrigation: Higgins v. Barker, 42 Cal. 233,235 (1871). 452 14 Stat. 253, § 9 (1866), amended, 16 Stat. 218 (1870). 4S3Broder v. Water Co., 101 U. S. 274, 276-277 (1879). See the statement of general principles of appropriative rights in Hewitt v. Story, 64 Fed. 510, 514-515 (9th Cir. 1894), in which irrigation is specially mentioned. 45*Muir v. Allison, 33 Idaho 146, 159-160, 191 Pac. 206 (1920). The principle that one may use no more water than is necessary according to the standards and practices of good husbandry for the particular crops sought to be grown, all essential factors being taken into consideration, does not place any restraint on the kinds of crops one may desire to raise: In re Robinson, 61 Idaho 462, 469, 103 Pac. (2d) 693 (1940).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v.