Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139125
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:29:52+00:00

Document:
' "¦ j. * 743 of the legislature to the problem. The legislature, then in session, amended the water appropriation statute to provide that no prescriptive right to the use of any public water whether appropriated or unappro- priated could be acquired by adverse use or adverse possession for any period of time whatsoever; that any such right to appropriate any water must be initiated by making application to the State Engineer for a per- mit and not otherwise.176 The riparian doctrine, although at one time recognized in Nevada, was repudiated in 1885.177 The supreme court, in so rejecting that doctrine, specifically overruled a former decision178 in which land pat- ented by the United States prior to the congressional enactment of July 26, 18661T9 was held to have riparian rights as against a prior appropriator. There has been no recognition of the riparian doctrine in subsequent decisions.180 Early decisions or expressions of opinion by the Nevada Supreme Court were to the effect that percolating waters belonged to the owner of the overlying land, except in the case of water percolating to a creek from a spring which supplied water to the creek.1*1 In 1939 a com- prehensive act relating to the appropriation of ground waters was passed,182 which repealed and replaced earlier legislation183 and which was extensively amended in 1947 and 1949.184 All ground waters are declared to belong to the public and to be subject to appropriation only lwNev. Sess. Laws 1949, ch. 83, amending Comp. Laws 1929, § 7897; Gomp. Laws 1949 Supp., § 7897. m Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev. 78, 84-88, 6 Pac. 442 (1885). Riparian rights were referred to, ]but were not the basis of decision in: Lobdell v. Simpson, 2 Nev. 274, 276-278 (1866); Ophir Silver Min. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534, 543 (1869); Covington v. Becker, 5 Nev. 281, 282-283 (1869). 178 Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249, 256-257 (1872). To the same effect: Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Saw. 176, 24 Fed. Cas. 594 (1872). 179 14 Stat. L. 253, § 9, U. S. Rev. Stats., § 2339. 180 See Reno Smelting, Mill. & Reduction Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269, 21 Pac. 317 (1889); Twaddle v. Winters, 29 Nev. 88, 105-107, 85 Pac. 280 (1906), 89 Pac. 289 (1907); In re Humboldt River, 49 Nev. 357, 361-362, 246 Pac. 692 (1926); Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulley, 53 Nev. 163, 172, 295 Pac. 772 (1931); In re Manse Spring and Its Tributaries, 60 Nev. 280, 286, 108 Pac. (2d) 311 (1940). lslMosier v. Caldwell, 7 Nev. 363, 366-367 (1872); Strait v. Brown, 16 Nev. 317, 321, 323 (1881). See comments and citations in Cardelli v. Comstock Tunnel Co., 26 Nev. 284, 295-297, 66 Pac. 950 (1901), in which, however, the question of rights of owners of overlying lands to percolating waters was not passed upon. 1MNev. Sess. Laws 1939, ch. 178; Gomp. Laws 1941 Supp., §§ 7993.10 to 7993.24. 18SNev. Sess. Laws 1915, ch. 210; Comp. Laws 1929, §§7987 to 7993; amended Sess. Laws 1935, ch. 184, and Sess. Laws 1937, ch. 149. 184 Nev. Sess. Laws 1947, ch. 43, and Sess. Laws 1949, ch. 103; Comp. Laws 1949 Supp., §§ 7993.11 to 7993.21.

References: § 7897
 § 7897
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 § 2339
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.