Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130511
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:05:48+00:00

Document:
342 APPROPRIATION OF WATER - The license "shall be binding upon the state as to the right of such licensee to use the amount of water mentioned therein, and shall be prima facie evidence as to such right."571 The Idaho Supreme Court held that a license is invalid if issued with respect to use of water on land not mentioned in the original application for a permit.572 - Rights set forth in a certificate shall continue in the owner so long as the water shall be applied to a beneficial use in accordance with its terms, subject only to loss by nonuse as provided in the statute. A certificate that has passed the time allowed for contesting and cancellation "shall be conclusive evidence of the priority and extent of the appropriation therein described in any proceeding in any court or tribunal of the state," except where the rights have been subsequently abandoned.573 - "The certificate * * * shall be prima facie evidence of the owner's right to the use of the water in the quantity, for the purpose, at the place, and during the time specified therein, subject to prior rights."574 (f) Revocation and cancellation. The California statute gives the Water Resources Control Board authority to revoke a license, subject to judicial review, "at any time" after its issuance if the water is not being put to beneficial use or if any of its terms and conditions are not being observed .S7S The Oregon State Engineer, subject to appeal to the circuit court, may cancel a certificate (and the permit on which it is based) as a result of a contest brought within 3 months after its issuance.576 Most of the States, however, make no provision for revocation or cancellation of a certificate or license as such. The appropriative water right which this document evidences is of course subject to loss under the forfeiture statutes by reason of failure to make use of the water as provided therein (see chapter 14). Additional appropriation.-\\. is legally possible for a water user to make more than one appropriation for use on his land so long as he does not exceed, with respect to a particular tract, the statutory limitation (if there is one) or the quantity reasonably necessary for beneficial use thereon. Any additional appropriations, unless provided otherwise by statute, take their places in the line of priorities attaching to the particular water supply. For example, an irrigator may hold the first, third, and fifth priorities and only those. In this case, his third priority is junior to the second and senior to the fourth priorities held by other parties. Wyoming and Nebraska are among the few States in which there are quantitative statutory limitations upon the water that may be appropriated 571 Idaho Code Ann. § 42-220 (1948). "2Basinger v. Taylor, 36 Idaho 591, 597-598, 211 Pac. 1085 (1922). 573Oreg. Rev. Stat. § § 5 37.250(2) and .270 (Supp. 1969). 574 Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-17 (1968). 575Cal. Water Code § § 1675-1677 (West Supp. 1970). 576 i 'Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 537.260(1) (Supp. 1969).

References: § 42
 v. 
 § 5
 § 73
 § 1675
 § 537