Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130670
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:42:56+00:00

Document:
ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRI ATIVE RIGHT 5 01 of water should not reasonably be limited in his water right to his minimum needs.325 Reasonableness of use of water is a question of fact to be determined by the jury (or the court) according to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.326 Under current administrative procedures for appropriating water pursuant to permits to do so: "Water may be appropriated in excess of the reasonable amount that may be used for the beneficial use designated in the applica- tion.327 Reasonable beneficial use.- An amendment to the constitution of California in 1928 provided that "The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, * * *." Riparian as well as appropriative rights are governed by the limitation.328 In construing the amendment and its impact upon the State law of water rights, the California Supreme Court employed the term "reasonable beneficial use" (considering in connection therewith reasonable methods of use and reasonable methods of diversion) as denoting the measure of the water right, appropriative and riparian alike, as now commended by the fundamental law of the State.329 The term has been applied to the measure of water rights in subsequent cases as well.330 Economical use.-To the requirements of beneficial and reasonable use the courts added the concept of economy in the use of water-that the appropriator's use must be economical, in accordance with his needs.331 The 32SCaldwell v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 225 Fed. 584, 596 (D. Idaho 1915). The prior appropriator cannot prevent others from using the surplus above his own economical and reasonable needs: Roeder v. Stein, 23 Nev. 92, 97, 42 Pac. 867 (1895); Doherty v. Pratt, 34 Nev. 343, 349-350, 124 Pac. 574 (1912); Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 9, 22 (9th Cir. 1917). 326Dripps v. Allison's Mines Co., 45 Cal. App. 95, 99-100,187 Pac. 448 (1919);Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev. 217, 243-244 (1875). And the method commonly used in the community has a bearing in determining the quantity of water to which a user is entitled: Beasley v. Engstrom, 31 Idaho 14, 18,168 Pac. 1145 (1917). 327 Crawford v. Lehilrr. Co., 10 Utah (2d) 165, 168, 350 Pac. (2d) 147 (1960). 328 Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 3. 329Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. (2d) 351, 368-369, 381, 40 Pac. (2d) 486 (1935). 330Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore In. Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 489, 547, 567, 568, 45 Pac. (2d) 972 (1935); Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist., 7 Cal. (2d) 316, 339, 60 Pac. (2d) 439 (1936); Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 925, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). See also Joslin v. Mann Municipal Water Dist., 67 Cal. (2d) 132,429 Pac. (2d) 889, 60 Cal. Rptr. 377 (1967), discussed in chapter 6 under "Interrelationships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States-California." 331Dalton v. Kelsey, 58 Oreg. 244, 253-254, 114 Pac. 464 (1911); he "should be required to make an economic as well as a reasonable use of the water," Union Mill & Min. Co.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.