Court Opinion

ID: 6660388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:01:26.809642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:08.621324
License: Public Domain

Hamer, J.,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
I concur in the opinion so. far as it reverses the judgment of the district court, and no further. I am unwilling to adopt the views expressed in the opinion, and dissent from them. I am unwilling that the case shall be dismissed, and dissent from so much of the opinion as directs its dismissal. Only that amount of water should be adjudged to the main ditch which can be applied to a beneficial use. The amount of water applied should , be with due regard to the rights of other appropriators, and where the first appropriator fails to apply all the water within the limits of his appropriation to a beneficial use. and there is an excess of water which is not applied, the same shall be for the use of the next appropriator in the order of priority, and there should be no appropriation except for an actual beneficial use. The ditch should not be held entitled to appropriate water over and above that which is intended for an immediate beneficial use, and water not so diverted and used should belong to the next appropriatorg in order of priority. As between ditches, there should be a pro rata distribution of water based upon the amount each ditch has lawfully appropriated and applied to a beneficial use, and not exceeding the limit of each appropriation.