Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138545
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:58:58+00:00

Document:
163 original diverter of waters to reuse them.60 For example, water escaping from a reservoir by leakage may collect in low areas or percolate through the subsoil later to augment the flow of the stream from which it was diverted. Litigation involving return flow has arisen in connection with a number of large irrigation projects under Reclamation Law.61 Like ground water, return flow presents complicated physical problems not present in the case of surface water*, such as that encountered in efforts to trace and identify return flow.62 As large-scale irrigation operations progressed, irrigated areas experienced a rising water table. At times, this resulted in widespread waterlogging of lands irrigated by the project and of other lands.63 Remedies have included use of deep, open drainage ditches or sumps from which water is pumped into wasteways. Recovery of significant flows in this manner sharpened interest in legal rights to their use. Some states have enacted legislation regarding rights in seep- age from constructed works.64 A 1941 New Mexico statute furnishes an interesting example.65 It defines "artificial sur- face waters" as: waters whose appearance or accumulation is due to es- cape, seepage, loss, waste, drainage, or percolation from 60 Judicial opinions variously refer to "waste waters," "seepage and waste waters," or "return flow." See, e. g., Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 600 (1945); Ramshorn Ditch Go. v. United States, 269 Fed. 80, 85 (0. A. 8, 1920). a For example: Salt River Project, Lambeye v. Garcia, 18 Ariz. 178,157 Pac. 977 (1916); Boise Project, Griffiths v. Cole, 264 Fed. 369 (D. O. Idaho 1919); North Platte Project, Ramshorn Ditch Co. v. United States, 269 Fed. 80 (0. A. 8, 1920); Boise Project, United States v. Haga, 276 Fed. 41 (D. 0. Idaho 1921); Shoshone Project, Ide v. United States, 263 U. S. 497 (1924) ; North Platte Project, United States v. Tilley, 124 F. 2d 850 (C. A. 8, 1941) ; Ken- drick Project, Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589 (1945). M See, e. g., the reference to the "obscurity in the movement of percolating waters" in Natron Soda Company v. United States, 257 U. S. 138,146 (1921). "* See, e. g., Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. Bond, 268 U. S. 50, 52 (1925). For more extensive discussion of the facts, see Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Bond, 288 Fed. 541 (0. A. 9,1923). M See, e. g., the review of the law of several states in Binning v. Miller, 55 Wyo. 451, 466,102 P. 2d 54, 59 (1940). " N. Mex. Stat. Ann. 1941, § 77-625.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 77