Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130189
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:34:37+00:00

Document:
20 STATE WATER POLICIES rights of completed appropriations cannot be destroyed without compensa- tion."128 Statutes of Oregon and Utah purport to give preference to the use of water for certain purposes in time of water shortage.129 Neither statute specifically requires the payment of compensation to appropriators whose rights would be thus impaired or destroyed. But so far as has been ascertained, neither statute has been construed on this point in any reported court decision. Still other statutory preferences apply to the acquisition of appropriative rights, rather than as between uses of water for which rights have been obtained. For example, Arizona legislation provides that when pending applications conflict, first preference goes to domestic (including small garden) and municipal uses, second to irrigation and stockwatering, third to power and mining, and last to recreation and wildlife, including fish.130 These statutory preferences are discussed in chapter 7. 128 Kearney Water & Electric Powers Co. v. Alfalfa Irr. Dist., 97 Nebr. 139,146, 149 N. W. 363(1914). 129Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 540.140 (Supp. 1969); Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-21 (1968). See also Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 536.310(12) (Supp. 1969); Kans. Stat. Ann. § 82a-707 (1969); N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-01.1 (Supp. 1969). These statutes are discussed in chapter 7. 130 Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. § § 45-141(c) (1956) and 45-147 (Supp. 1970).

References: v. 
 § 540
 § 73
 § 536
 § 82
 § 61
 § 45