Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130501
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:35:49+00:00

Document:
332 APPROPRIATION OF WATER may be defeated by failure of the permittee to comply with the necessary requirements. According to the California statute, "A permit shall be effective for such time as the water actually appropriated under it is used for a useful and beneficial purpose in conformity with this division, but no longer."530 The California Supreme Court says that a permit under the Water Code is merely evidence of initiation of an appropriation.531 Similarly, the Texas Legislature declares that a permit, when filed as required with the county clerk, shall be constructive notice of the filing of the application, issuance of the permit, and of all the rights arising thereunder.532 And it is the view of the Texas courts that "permit," being synonymous with "leave or license," means only that the permittee has the license of the State to become an appropriator of water under statutory conditions;533 that the mere granting of a permit by the administrator does not constitute a preexisting preferential right to the use of water, but is only evidence of it.534 (b) Permit terms and conditions, (i) Contents of permit. The permit's importance lies in the fact that it fully describes the appropriative water right which the applicant is specifically authorized by the State to acquire, and which he will acquire if he completes the designated process successfully. Whether in a particular State the permit is in the form of an application to appropriate water with official approval endorsed thereon, or is an entirely separate document, it contains the terms of the intended appropriative right. These include, for example, date of filing the application, quantity of water, point of diversion, place of use, and purpose of use. Also set forth are the terms and conditions under which the right shall be acquired, such as periods of time for performing essential requirements and anything else provided for in the statute. In addition, the permit sets out restrictions, such as periods of annual use of water and maximum rate of diversion; general requirements, including making of reports; and possibly matters pertaining especially to the desired right in question. See "Restrictions and Preferences in Appropriation of Water," below. S29Speer v. Stephenson, 16 Idaho 707, 716, 102 Pac. 365 (1909). Therefore, the permit is not an appropriation and is not real property under the statute. It is the consent given by the State to construct and acquire real property. Until all requirements have been complied with, the permit holder has nothing but an inchoate right: Basinger v. Taylor, 30 Idaho 289, 297-298, 164 Pac. 522 (1917). See also Morse v. Gold Beach Water, Light & Power Co., 160 Oreg. 301, 305, 84 Pac. (2d) 113 (1938). 530Cal. Water Code § 1390 (West 1956). 531 Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 521, 525, 279 Pac. 128 (1929). S32Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7518 (1954). S33Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82; 124-126, 286 S. W. 458 (1926). The permittee obtains no property right in the water while flowing in the stream, and his appropriative right does not actually mature until he has taken the steps prescribed in the statute. S3ABoard of Water Engineers v. Briscoe, 35 S. W. (2d) 804, 806 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930, error dismissed).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1390
 v. 
 art. 7518
 v. 
 v.