Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130626
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:50:17+00:00

Document:
PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS 457 In Wyoming, it is provided by statute (a) that (except as stated under (b), below) rights to the use of water shall attach to the land for irrigation, or to other beneficial purposes; but (b) that reservoir water rights acquired under reservoir permits and adjudications shall not attach to any particular lands except by formal conveyance executed by the reservoir owner.101 The provision with respect to optional attachment of reservoir rights was added in 1921.102 Some court decisions in harmony with the statutes.-These are cited in the accompanying footnote.103 Some individual State situations.-(1) Arizona. Appurtenance of shares of capital stock of Salt River Valley Water Users' Association to the lands of shareholders, as provided in the articles of incorporation, was sustained by the Arizona Supreme Court.104 (2) California. By contrast with the riparian right, the appropriative right is not inseparably annexed to the land as part and parcel of it, but is separable and alienable from the land to which it became initially ap- purtenant.105 Whether the shares of stock of a mutual irrigation company are appurtenant to the land on which the water served by the company is used is a question of fact, to be determined from the circumstances of the case.106 Severance of the appropriative right from the land to which initially appurtenant does not take place when the landowner and his neighbors convey their several water rights to a mutual irrigation company for the mere purpose of convenience in the 101 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § § 41-2 and -37 (1957). 102Wyo. Laws 1921, ch. 141. 103Tattersfleld v. Putnam, 45 Ariz. 156, 170, 171, 41 Pac. (2d) 228 (1935);Anderson v. Cummings, 81 Idaho 327, 331-332, 340 Pac. (2d) 1111 (1959); a water right acquired in Idaho by the "constitutional" method-diversion and use without needing to conform to the statute-becomes an appurtenance of the land to which it is applied, as well as one acquired under the statute: Furey v. Taylor, 22 Idaho 605, 611, 127 Pac. 676 (1912); it took no legislation to establish the principle of appurtenance in arid Nevada: Zolezzi v. Jackson, 72 Nev. 150, 153-154, 297 Pac. (2d) 1081 (\956);Middle Rio Grande Water Users Assn. v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 57 N. Mex. 287, 299, 258 Pac. (2d) 391 (1953); the provision "is a valid exercise of the legislative power to regulate and control the use and distribution of the waters of the state," Broughton v. Stricklin, 146 Oreg. 259, 272, 28 Pac. (2d) 219 (1933), 30 Pac. (2d) 332 (1934); appurtenant to the land, and therefore realty: Madison v.McNeal, 171 Wash. 669, 675, 19 Pac. (2d) 97 (1933); in 1909, the Wyoming legislature adopted the policy that a water right by direct flow from a stream shall be attached to the land: Hunziker v.Knowlton, 78 Wyo. 241, 249-251, 322 Pac. (2d) 141 (1958). 104 Greene & Griffin Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Salt River Valley Water Users'Assn., 25 Ariz. 354, 359, 360-362, 217 Pac. 945 (1923). 105 Wright v. Best, 19 Cal. (2d) 368, 382, 121 Pac. (2d) 702 (1942). 106Bank of Visalia \. Smith, 146 Cal. 398, 400-401, 81 Pac. 542 (1905); Smith v. Hallwoodlrr. Co., 67 Cal. App. 777, 782, 228 Pac. 373 (1924).

References: § 41
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.