Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130580
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:43:17+00:00

Document:
METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 411 "the reuse or reclamation of the water."901 Consideration also shall be given to general coordinated water resource plans.902 Note the quoted language of the legislature as to what the Board shall do in its judgment. "In carrying out its present duty," said the California Supreme Court,903 "the department [now the Board] exercises a broad discretion in determining whether the issuance of a permit will best serve the public interest." (Emphasis supplied.) This determination requires an administrative adjudication which, in any case in which the issuance of a permit is protested, may be made only after a hearing. The administrative decision is subject to judicial review by way of writ of mandate.904 (3) Kansas. As noted above, the water rights statute requires the Chief Engineer to reject an application if the proposed use will prejudicially and unreasonably affect the public interest, or to require its modification to conform to the public interest to the end that the highest public benefit and maximum economical development may result from the use of such water. In ascertaining such question, the Chief Engineer is directed to take into consideration the area, safe yield, and recharge rate of the appropriate water supply; the priority of existing claims of all persons to use water thereof; the amount of each such claim; and all other matters pertaining to such question.905 (4) Texas. The Texas Water Rights Commission is directed by the legislature to reject an application if the proposed use is detrimental to the public welfare. It is also charged with the duty of conserving natural water resources "in the greatest practicable measure for the public welfare." The Commission must not only follow the statutory rule relating to preferential uses of water, but must also give preference to those applications the purposes of which contemplate and will effectuate the maximum utilization of waters and are designed to prevent waste of water.906 The subject of preferences in Texas water law is discussed later under "Preferences in Water Appropriation". (5) New Mexico. The question of public interest was considered by the Supreme Court of New Mexico shortly before the attainment of statehood. The court expressed its belief that matters of public interest went beyond questions of danger to public health and safety-that the purpose of the statute 901 Cal. Water Code § 1257 (West Supp. 1970). 902Id. §1256. 903Citing § § 1253 and 1255. 90*Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, 44 Cal. (2d) 90, 99-101, 280 Pac. (2d) 1 (1955). For the development of this principle, see Tulare Water Co. v. State Water Commission, 187 Cal. 533, 536-537, 202 Pac. 874 (1921); Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 521, 522-523, 279 Pac. 128 (1929); East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. v. State Department of Public Works, 1 Cal. (2d) 476, 477-481, 35 Pac. (2d) 1027 (1934). 905Kans. Stat. Ann. §82a-711 (1969). 906Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 7506, 7507, 7472c (1955), and 7471 (Supp. 1970).

References: § 1257
 §1256
 § 1253
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §82