Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130543
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:27:13+00:00

Document:
374 APPROPRIATION OF WATER decisions of other courts, it was emphasized that following up the initial act of appropriation with reasonable diligence extended to consummation of the purpose without unnecessary delay.733 Principles respecting diligence.-The principles respecting diligence in relation to acquisition of appropriative rights were established in decisions of many courts prior to the era of statutory control and such principles have continued to be applied. These principles are important both in fixing times in permits for performance of certain acts, and in allowing extensions of such time periods. What the law requires is reasonable diligence, with a fixed purpose on the part of the intending appropriator to carry through his project.734 The diligence required does not involve unusual or extraordinary effort.735 What is required is that the attempt to appropriate water be pursued with all the expedition and constant effort to accomplish the undertaking that is usual with men engaged in like enterprises who desire a speedy accomplishment of their designs.736 There must be such assiduity in prosecution of the enterprise as will manifest to the world a bona fide intention to complete it within a reasonable time.737 Question of fact.-The question of reasonable diligence is one of fact for the court or the jury to decide.738 It depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.739 And it necessarily varies with each individual case.740 Thus a lapse of 25 years, unexplained, in reconstructing a destroyed dam would be considered in determining, as a question of fact, whether due diligence had been used under all the circumstances of the case.741 ^Larimer County Res. Co. v. People ex rel. Luthe, 8 Colo. 614, 616-617, 9 Pac. 794 (1886); Clough v. Wing, 2 Ariz. 371, 382-383, 17 Pac. 453 (1888). 13ADenver v. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 388, 276 Pac. (2d) 992 (1954); Four Counties Water Users Assn. v. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist., 159 Colo. 499, 514-516, 414 Pac. (2d) 469 (1966). 735/n re Deschutes River & Tributaries, 134 Oreg. 623, 647-648, 286 Pac. 563, 294 Pac. 1049 (1930). 736 Carbon Canal Co. v. Sanpete Water Users Assn., 10 Utah (2d) 376, 380, 353 Pac. (2d) 916(1960). ™Ophir Silver Min. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534, 542-543, 546 (1869); In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 130-131, 227 Pac. 1065 (1924). 738 Weaver v. Eureka Lake Co., 15 Cal. 271, 273-274 (1860); Gates v. Settlers'Mill, Canal &Res. Co., 19 Okla. 83, 91, 91 Pac. 856 (1907). ™ Parker v. Mclntyre, 47 Ariz. 484, 492-495, 56 Pac. (2d) 1337 (1936); Klugv. Ireland, 99 Colo. 542, 543, 64 Pac. (2d) 131 (1936); Conant v. Jones, 3 Idaho 606, 612-613, 32 Pac. 250 (1893); Rodgers v. Pitt, 129 Fed. 932, 941-942 (C.C.D. Nev. 1904); In re Silvies River, 115 Oreg. 27, 61, 237 Pac. 322 (1925). ™°Gates v. Settlers'Mill., Canal & Res. Co., 19 Okla. 83, 89-90, 91 Pac. 856 (1907). "The time within which the appropriation must be completed varies according to circumstances, as what may be reasonable diligence in one case may be a great lack of diligence in another,* * * " Maricopa County M. W. C. Dist. v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 103, 4 Pac. (2d) 369 (1931). 741 Gilia Water Co. v. Green, 29 Ariz. 304, 306, 241 Pac. 307 (1925).

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