Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130176
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:14:40+00:00

Document:
DECLARATIONS OF POLICY 7 the public interest in the development of the water resources of the State is of vital concern to the people thereof, and that the State shall determine what surface and ground water can be controlled and developed for the greatest public benefit and in what way it should be done.32 The public interest in State control of waters and water rights in the arid land States, say the courts, is "definite and substantial," and they have the power to legislate with respect thereto as they deem wise.33 "It has long been the settled law in the arid and semiarid states that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may regulate the manner of appropriation and distribution of water from natural streams for purposes of irrigation."34 [Emphasis sup- plied.] A Federal court remarked with respect to the Nevada law that:35 The idea that the individual has a vested right to enjoy the use of running water without public regulation or control is subversive of the sovereignty of the State. The state cannot divest itself of, or surrender, grant, or bargain away this authority.* * * Supervisory Functions Most of the Western States provide by statute for State control over the acquisition of appropriative rights to the use of public waters and over the distribution of water to those entitled to receive it, and vest these duties in a centralized group of water administrative officials. Many States also provide special procedures for the adjudication of water rights; in most of these States, State officials play an active part. Provisions for these administrative and judicial functions comprise a major part of the State statutory water law. In Wyoming, which pioneered in setting up a completely integrated central- ized administrative procedure, these are constitutional as well as statutory functions. The original constitution of the new State directed the legislature to divide the State into four water divisions, each to have a superintendent; provided for a State Engineer as the chief water administrative officer; and provided also that the State Engineer and the four division superintendents 32Cal. Water Code §§ 104 and 105 (West 1956); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-1-2 (1967). 33California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S. 142, 163-165 (1935). "Humboldt Lovelock In. Light & Power Co. v. Smith, 25 Fed. Supp. 571, 573 (D. Nev. 1938). See In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592,617, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915). To accomplish its purposes, the State has a right to exercise a superintending control over entire stream systems: Ormsby County v. Kearney, 37 Nev. 314, 336-338, 142 Pac. 803 (1914). 3SBergman v. Kearney, 241 Fed. 884, 893 (D. Nev. 1917). With respect to the New Mexico constitutional declaration that beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right to the use of water, the supreme court of that State has held that the provision "merely declares the basis of the right to the use of water, and in no manner prohibits the regulation of the enjoyment of that right." Harkey v. Smith, 31 N. Mex. 521,526-527, 247 Pac. 550 (1926).

References: § 46
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.