Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130631
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:52:55+00:00

Document:
462 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT was appurtenant to the land. It was the majority opinion that proof that water represented by water stock was used on certain land by the owner during the entire period of his ownership is not alone sufficient to rebut the presumption of nonappurtenance.137 (11) Washington. A right to the flow of water, considered as appurtenant to the land on which it is used and as real property, is subject to adjudication under the water code.138 In a mutual irrigation company the stock certificate represents the water right. A transfer or sale of the certificate may be made separate from the land and will transfer the water right. But where not thus sold or transferred, the question whether the water right is appurtenant to the stockholder's land is generally a question of fact.139 Appurtenant and not Generally Severable Without Loss of the Right Wyoming.-The Wyoming statute provides that rights to the direct use of water shall attach to the land for irrigation, or to other beneficial purposes. In the same section is the declaration that "Water rights for the direct use of the natural unstored flow of any stream cannot be detached from the lands, place or purpose for which they are acquired," except for changes to a preferred use, correction of errors in permits and certificates of appropriation, and various other exceptions.140 Prior to enactment of this provision in 1909,141 it was well established in this State that appurtenant streamflow water rights might be sold separate and apart from the lands.142 The only limitation was that the change should not injuriously affect the rights of other appropriators.143 137Hatch v. Adams, 7 Utah (2d) 73, 75-76, 318 Pac. (2d) 633 (1957). Evidence as to whether the grantees had used the water on this land continuously after they acquired it was conflicting. Evidence established that other water was used on the land in question. 138 Thompson v. Short, 6 Wash. (2d) 71, 87-88, 106 Pac. (2d) 720 (1940). 139Berg v. Yakima Valley Canal Co., 83 Wash. 451, 455-456, 145 Pac. 619 (1915). Appurtenant to mill property: Murray v. Briggs, 29 Wash. 245, 260-261, 69 Pac. 765 (1902). 140Wyo. Stat. Ann. § § 41-2 to -8 (1957), 41-9 to -10.2:1 (Supp. 1969). The exceptions are summarized in chapter 9, note 206. Regarding these and perhaps certain other exceptions, see Trelease, Frank J., and Lee, Delias W., "Priority and Progress-Case Studies in the Transfer of Water Rights," 1 Land and Water Law Rev. 1 (1966); Trelease, Frank J., "Transfer of Water Rights-Errata and Addenda- Sales For Recreational Purposes And To Districts," 2 Land and Water Law Rev. 321 (1967). 141 Wyo. Laws 1909, ch. 68. l*2Hunzikerv.Knowlton, 78 Wyo. 241, 249-251, 322 Pac. (2d) 141 (1958). 143Johnston v. Little Horse Creek Irrigating Co., 13 Wyo. 208, 226, 228, 79 Pac. 22 (1904).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 41
 v.