Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138420
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:53:02+00:00

Document:
38 and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining, and manufacturing purposes subject to existing rights. With the foregoing proviso, the 1877 Act allows:15S entry and reclamation of desert lands within the states of California, Oregon and Nevada (to which Colorado was later added), and the then territories of Washing- ton, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Dakota * * * . Congress thus granted the right to appropriate waters for irri- gation on that part of the public domain subject to the 1877 Act.154 The intention of Congress, the Court has said, was "to further the disposition and settlement of the public domain."155 And it declared that Congress intended by the 1877 Act:156 to establish the rule that for the future the land should be patented separately; and that all nonnavigable waters thereon should be reserved for the use of the public under the laws of the states and territories named. Effect of the Acts of 1866,1870, and 1877.-In evaluating the effect of the Acts of 1866, 1870, and 1877, it must be borne in mind, as the Supreme Court said in California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., that:157 183 California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 156 (1935). "* Ontierres v. Albuquerque Land & Irrigation Co., 188 U. S. 545, 553 (1903). More recently, the Court has referred to the 1877 Act as the means by which "waters upon the public domain in the arid-land states and territories were dedicated to the use of the public for irrigation and other purposes." Brush v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 300 U. S. 352, 367 (1937). M5 California Oregon Power Co., v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 161 (1935). The court also declared it "inconceivable that Congress intended to abrogate the common-law right of the riparian patentee for the benefit of the desert land owner and keep it alive against the homestead or preemption claimant." 295 U. S. at 162. Ma 295 U. S. at 162. "7 295 U. S. at 162. See also IcJces v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82, 95 (1937); United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725,747-748 (1950).

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