Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130789
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:41:50+00:00

Document:
620 EXERCISE OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT The theme is reiterated in both earlier and later decisions in cases in which the plan could be equitably applied.133 A South Dakota decision was to the effect that if the head of water to which the holder of a small tract of land is entitled is not sufficient for practicable irrigation, the court should award him a stream of adequate size and should limit the time of use.134 The Nebraska statute to the same effect with respect to tracts of 40 acres or less135 is noted earlier under "Statutory Authorization to Rotate Water Uses." Also noted there is Nevada's legislative purpose to enable each water user to have an irrigation head of at least 2 second-feet.136 Courts of review have had occasion to pass on compulsory rotation systems provided by Oregon administrators in statutory stream system adjudica- tions.137 Qualification, Questioning, or Disapproval of Compulsion Despite the considerable number of high court decisions approving not only the principle of rotation in water uses, but also its imposition by court decree where this was considered justified by the surrounding circumstances, the approach to rotation issues has been taken in other cases with some reservation or even actual dissent. A few examples follow. 133Cundy v. Weber, 68 S. Dak. 214, 226-227, 300 N. W. 17 (1941); Ward County W. I. Dist. No. 3 v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. 1, 117 Tex. 10, 14-16, 295 S. W. 917 (1927), reforming and affirming 237 S. W. 584 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921); Crawford v. Lehilrr. Co., 10 Utah (2d) 165, 169, 350 Pac. (2d) 147 (1960); having the power to make such a judgment or decree, the court also has the power to enforce it by injunction: Hidalgo County W. I. Dist. No. 2 v. Cameron County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 5, 253 S. W. (2d) 294, 296 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.); Becker v. Marble Creek Irr. Co., 15 Utah 225, 229, 49 Pac. 892 (1897);Dameron Valley Res. & Canal Co. v. Bleak, 61 Utah 230, 237, 211 Pac. 974 (1922); Rocky Ford Canal Co. v. Cox, 92 Utah 148, 158, 59 Pac. (2d) 935 (1936); Union Mill & Min. Co. v.Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73, 121 (C.C.D. Nev. 1897); Anderson v. Bassman, 140 Fed. 14, 29 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1905). 134Cook v. Evans, 45 S. Dak. 31,42, 185 N. W. 262 (1921). 13SNebr. Rev. Stat. § 46-231 (1968). I36Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.075 (Supp. 1967). 137/n re Willow Creek, 1A Oreg. 592, 629, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915);/n re North Powder River, 75 Oreg. 83, 96, 144 Pac. 485 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915). In a controversy over rights decreed in the North Powder River adjudication, the supreme court saw no reason why, if a postadjudication appropriation was not interfered with, a projected rotation plan could not be carried out if the earliest appropriator did not need all the water for a short period of time, as this would be purely a matter of administration: Hutchinson v. Stricklin, 146 Oreg. 285, 302-303, 28 Pac. (2d) 225 (1933). In one case, the supreme court approved establishment of a plan of rotation provided by decree without objection at the time, inasmuch as no appeal had been taken from that part of the decree; objection now made by some of the parties came too late: Krebs v. Perry, 134 Oreg. 290, 303-304, 292 Pac. 319, 293 Pac. 432 (1930).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 46
 § 533
 v. 
 v.