Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130667
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:26:05+00:00

Document:
498 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT in an early case, and repeated by other courts, that an appropriation does not confer such an absolute right to the body of the water diverted that the owner can allow it, after diversion, to run to waste and thus prevent others from using it for legitimate purposes.305 Custom in a community cannot authorize unreasonable waste of water.306 Nor does a decreed right to the use of a specified quantity of water authorize a wasteful or excessive use at such times as the maximum is not needed for the decreed purposes.307 Such practices that result in injury to junior appropriators may be restricted by a proper action. It must be emphasized that the waste of water that is frowned upon is unreasonable waste.309 Mathematical exactness in determining unreasonable excesses is seldom practicable, but a reasonable approximation to substantial accuracy should be aimed at.310 The prohibition against unnecessary waste does not mean that an appropriator is required to take extraordinary precautions to prevent waste of water if he is making a reasonable use of the water according to the general custom of the locality,311 "so long as the custom does not involve unnecessary waste."312 It is recognized, furthermore, that in operating an irrigation system-particularly a large one-there is practically always some unpreventable waste which is to be deemed a part of the appropriation.313 Claimants on a stream have the right to demand that water in excess of the reasonable requirements of those upstream be left in the channel to supply their own proper demands.314 And an appropriator who does not divert more 30SAtchison v. Peterson, 87 U. S. 507, 514 (1874);Mann v. Parker, 48 Oreg. 321, 323, 86 Pac. 598 (1906); Custer v. Missoula Public Service Co., 91 Mont. 136, 145, 6 Pac. (2d) 131(1931). ""Shafford v. White Bluffs Land & In. Co., 63 Wash. 10, 14-15, 114 Pac. 883 (1911). 307Fort Collins Mill. & Elevator Co. v. Larimer & Weld In. Co., 61 Colo. 45, 53,156 Pac. 140 (1916); Tucker v. Missoula Light & Ry. Co., 77 Mont. 91, 101-102, 250 Pac. 11 (1926). 308 Wall v. Superior Court of Yavapai County, 53 Ariz. 344, 356, 89 Pac. (2d) 624 (1939); Burley In. Dist. v. Ickes, 116 Fed. (2d) 529 (D. C. Cir. 1940); Clausen v.Armington, 123 Mont. 1, 17-18, 212 Pac. (2d) 440 (1949). 309Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 544, 545, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951). "This court has held that all unreasonable wasting of water should be suppressed by the court in adjudicating water rights." 310 Combs v. Agricultural Ditch Co., 17 Colo. 146, 153-154, 28 Pac. 966 (1892). 311Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 207 Cal. 8, 23, 276 Pac. 1017 (1929). 312Tiibre In. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 547, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935). He "cannot be compelled to divert according to the most scientific method known." See Worden v. Alexander, 108 Mont. 208, 215, 90 Pac. (2d) 160 (1939). 313Thayer v. California Development Co., 164 Cal. 117, 137, 128 Pac. 21 (1912); Bidleman v. Short, 38 Nev. 467, 470-471, 150 Pac. 834 (1915). 314 Barrows v. Fox, 98 Cal. 63, 66, 32 Pac. 811 (1893); Fort Lyon Canal Co. v. Chew, 33 Colo. 392, 404-405, 81 Pac. 37 (1905); In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 188, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924).

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