Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130669
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:16:47+00:00

Document:
500 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT Reasonable use. -The term "reasonable" came to be adopted by the courts as a qualification of the appropriator's use of wattr for a beneficial purpose.320 As aptly stated by the Oregon Supreme Court, "The use must not only be beneficial to the lands of the appropriator, but it must also be reason- able in relation to the reasonable requirements of subsequent appropri- ators."321 The California Supreme Court elaborated a little on the term by saying that:322 It is further substantially declared wherever the question has been considered that beneficial use is not what is actually consumed, but what is reasonably necessary for the purpose to which the water is devoted, and that an excessive diversion of water for any purpose cannot be regarded as a diversion for a beneficial use, in so far as it is in excess of any reasonable requirement for that purpose.* * * The effect of the decisions clearly appears to be that one actually diverting water under a claim of appropriation for a useful or beneficial purpose, cannot by such diversion acquire any right to divert more water than is reasonably necessary for such use or purpose, no matter how long a diversion in excess thereof has continued,* * *.323 But an interpretation of reasonableness is not to be pushed to the point of imposing unreasonableness upon the prior appropriator. Thus, a Federal district court has said "a reasonable method of farming must prevail and a farmer is not required to use methods which are costly in labor and money simply because some waste can be saved thereby."324 In an earlier case in the same court, it was agreed that conservation of water is a wise public policy, but that so also is conservation of the energy and well-being of the water user; that economy of use is not synonymous with minimum use, and so an appropriator 320Hewitt v. Story, 64 Fed. 510, 514 (9th Cir. 1894);Anderson v. Bassman, 140 Fed. 14, 28 (N.D. Cal. 1905); Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev. 217, 233, 243-244 (1875); "An appropriator of water for irrigation is entitled to so much water only as is necessary to irrigate his land, and is bound to make a reasonable use of it," Syllabus, dough v. Wing, 2 Ariz. 371, 17 Pac. 453 (1888). Under the appropriation doctrine, "diversion and application of water to a beneficial use constitute an appropriation, and entitle the appropriator to a continuing right to use the water, to the extent of the appropriation, but not beyond that reasonably required and actually used." Arizona v. California, 298 U. S. 558, 565-566 (1936). 321 Tudor v. Jaca, 178 Oreg. 126, 143, 164 Pac. (2d) 680 (1945), 165 Pac. (2d) 770 (1946). 322California Pastoral & Agricultural Co. v. Madera Canal & In. Co., 167 Cal. 78, 84, 85, 86, 138 Pac. 718(1914). 323 See also Natoma Water & Min. Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 51-52, 31 Pac. 112 (1892), 35 Pac. 334 (1894); Hufford v. Dye, 162 Cal. 147, 153-154, 159-160, 121 Pac. 400 (1912). ™Twin Falls Land & Water Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 7 Fed. Supp. 238, 252 (D. Idaho 1933).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.