Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139111
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:30:58+00:00

Document:
729 "statutory" method.94 The advantage of following the statutory method lies in the application of the doctrine of relation, or "relation back" as it sometimes is termed. That is, the priority of a right acquired by the so-called "constitutional" method dates from the completion of the appropriation, which takes place upon the application of the water to beneficial use; whereas the priority of a right perfected by strict com- pliance with the statute relates back to, and therefore dates from, the time of filing the application with the State agency, the statutory pro- cedure being the exclusive method by which the right can relate back to the initiation of the appropriation.96 The riparian doctrine is not recognized in Idaho with respect to the use of water of streams. The supreme court, in its first reported decision in a controversy over rights to the use of water, stated the law of the Territory to be that the first appropriation of water for a useful or beneficial purpose gave the better right thereto.96 And in its second reported decision in this field of law, the supreme court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of a prior appropriator of water of a stream as against a party who, after the making of such appropria- tion, entered and patented land contiguous to the stream and claimed the right to use the stream water as a reparian proprietor.97 In 1909 the court held that the legislature had full authority to provide the method of appropriating public waters by all persons, whether riparian owners or not.98 The court held, in the same year, that a riparian proprietor in Idaho could not successfully assert a prior or superior right to the right of an appropriator, to which extent the common-law doc- trine or riparian rights had been abrogated by the constitution and statutes; but that the riparian owner's right to use the water for do- mestic- and stock-watering purposes was "superior to any right of a stranger, intermeddler or interloper," that is, under the facts of the case, one who had interfered with the flow of the water at a time when he did not occupy the status of a legal appropriator.99 Notwithstanding this statement based upon the circumstances of the case, no question '"Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. American Ditch Assn., 50 Idaho 732, 737, 1 Pac. (2d) 196 (1931). 95 Crane Falls Power & Irr. Co. v. Snake River Irr. Co., 24 Idaho 63, 81-82, 133 Pac. 655 (1913); Reno v. Richards, 32 Idaho 1, 10-11, 178 Pac. 81 (1918) ; Silkey v. Tugs, 51 Idaho 344, 353, 5 Pac. (2d) 1049 (1931). Only when there is a full compliance with the statutes can the doctrine of relation be invoked: Rabido v. Furey, 33 Idaho 56, 63, 190 Pac. 73 (1920); Bachman v. Reynolds Irr. Dist., 56 Idaho 507,520, 55 Pac. (2d) 1314 (1936). "Malad Valley Irr. Co. v. Campbell, 2 Idaho 411, 414, 18 Pac. 52 (1888). "Drake v. Earhart, 2 Idaho 750, 757, 23 Pac. 541 (1890). mIdaho Power & Transportation Co. v. Stephenson, 16 Idaho 418, 429, 101 Pac. 821 (1909). "Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 491-494, 101 Pac. 1059 (1909).

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