Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130188
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:31:21+00:00

Document:
DECLARATIONS OF POLICY 19 well.120 LJntil 1966, a mining claim that included within its boundaries both banks of a stream was vested by statute with certain riparian rights.121 Preferences in Use of Water Although, in the consitution of Colorado, the principle of priority in time of appropriating water is declared, this principle is made applicable as between persons who use the water for the same purpose, with a further proviso that when the waters of a stream are not adequate for all desired uses, domestic purposes have the preference over all others and agriculture is preferred to manufacturing.122 Despite the failure of this section to provide for compensa- tion to the holder of the inferior right, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the section does not authorize one desiring to use water for domestic purposes to take it from another who has previously appropriated it for some other purpose, without just compensation.123 The Idaho constitution contains a preference provision similar to that of Colorado, but with these important differences: (1) The preference accorded domestic uses is subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by law. (2) In any organized mining district, uses of water for mining purposes, or for milling purposes associated with mining, have preference over manufacturing or agricultural purposes. (3) Usage by subsequent appropriators is subject to the laws regulating the condemnation of property for public or private use.124 According to the Idaho Supreme Court, the constitutional preference in favor of uses of water for domestic purposes is subject to other constitutional provisions regulating the taking of private property for public use.125 To the constitution of Nebraska there was added in 1920 a preference provision applicable in the event of insufficiency of the water supply, similar to that of Colorado, but with the important qualification that no inferior right to the use of water shall be acquired by a superior right without payment of just compensation.126 An earlier statutory provision, still in the law, granted this preference but without a proviso for compensation.127 Concerning this, the Nebraska Supreme Court observed in 1914 that "it must follow that vested 120 See Alaska Comp. Laws Ann. § 47-3-7 (1949), deleted from Alaska Stat., Tables (Supp. 1965); Kernan v.Andrus, 6 Alaska 54, 59 (1918). 131 Alaska Stat. §§ 27.10.080 and 38.05.260 (Supp. 1962), repealed, Laws 1966, ch. 50, § 2. Balabanoffy. Kellogg, 10 Alaska 11, 118 Fed. (2d) 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1940), certiorari denied, 314 U.S. 635 (1941). See note 106 supra, regarding the Alaska Water Use Act of 1966 which is an appropriation doctrine act and apparently purports to phase out such riparian rights. 122 Colo. Const., art. XVI, § 6. 123 Sterling v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421, 426, 94 Pac. 339 (1908). 124Idaho Const., art. XV, § 3. 12SBasinger v. Taylor, 30 Idaho 289, 294-295, 164 Pac. 522 (1917). See also Montpelier Mill. Co. v. Montpelier, 19 Idaho 212, 219-220,113 Pac. 741 (1911). 126 Nebr. Const., art. XV, § 6. 127 Nebr. Rev. Stat. § 46-204 (1968).

References: § 47
 § 2
 § 6
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 § 46