appropriation doctrine in Arizona

2010Id. (citations omitted). ¶13 Those words still ring true today.

2010Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 13 Those words still ring true today.

2001Relief came in a lawsuit filed by the government to enjoin Winters and other homesteaders, who claimed senior rights under the doctrine of prior appropriation, from “interfering in any manner with the use by the reservation of 5,000 inches of the water of the river.” Winters, 207 U.S. at 565 , 28 S.Ct. at 208 . ¶8 The Supreme Court, recognizing the “lands were arid, and, without irrigation, were practically valueless,” id. at 576 , 28 S.Ct. at 211 , held that Congress, by creating the Indian reservation, impliedly reserved “all of the waters of the river ... necessary for ... the purposes for

2001Relief came in a lawsuit filed by the government to enjoin Winters and other homesteaders, who claimed senior rights under the doctrine of prior appropriation, from “interfering in any manner with the use by the reservation of 5,000 inches of the water of the river.” Winters, 207 U.S. at 565 , 28 S.Ct. at 208 . ¶8 The Supreme Court, recognizing the “lands were arid, and, without irrigation, were practically valueless,” id. at 576 , 28 S.Ct. at 211 , held that Congress, by creating the Indian reservation, impliedly reserved “all of the waters of the river ... necessary for ... the purposes for

1975Thus, although Arizona has, by statutory provision, expressly abrogated riparian rights as they apply to surface diversions and irrigation, it seems that there still are discernible and functioning common law property rights relating to water, even though shortly after Hill v. Lenormand [ 2 Ariz. 354 , 16 P. 266 ] (footnote omitted) was decided in 1888, the court reconsidered the question of riparian rights and held that this doctrine is no part of Arizona law. (footnote omitted)” Lewis, Water Rights — Public and Private Water — Water in a> Slough Fed by The Colorado River is Public Water —Bri

1975Thus, although Arizona has, by statutory provision, expressly abrogated riparian rights as they apply to surface diversions and irrigation, it seems that there still are discernible and functioning common law property rights relating to water, even though shortly after Hill v. Lenormand [ 2 Ariz. 354 , 16 P. 266 ] (footnote omitted) was decided in 1888, the court reconsidered the question of riparian rights and held that this doctrine is no part of Arizona law. (footnote omitted)” Lewis, Water Rights — Public and Private Water — Water in a> Slough Fed by The Colorado River is Public Water —Bri

1955The majority held that the decision in Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65 , 4 P.2d 369 , became a rule of property in that by large investments in the reclamation of desert lands, rights had been acquired which were entitled to protection under the law as declared, and that as between users of water the doctrine of reasonable use applied, that is to say, as between individual rights this court would apply the doctrine of reasonable use so far as found applicable to conditions in Arizona.

1955The majority held that the decision in Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65 , 4 P.2d 369 , became a rule of property in that by large investments in the reclamation of desert lands, rights had been acquired which were entitled to protection under the law as declared, and that as between users of water the doctrine of reasonable use applied, that is to say, as between individual rights this court would apply the doctrine of reasonable use so far as found applicable to conditions in Arizona.

1952(Citing cases.)” (Emphasis supplied.) The same conclusion was reached in the case of State of Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 , 42 S.Ct. 552 , 66 L.Ed. 999 and in Snake Creek Mine & Tunnel Company v. Midway Irrigation Co., 260 U.S. 596 , 43 S.Ct. 215 , 67 L.Ed. 423 .

1952(Citing cases.)” (Emphasis supplied.) The same conclusion was reached in the case of State of Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 , 42 S.Ct. 552 , 66 L.Ed. 999 and in Snake Creek Mine & Tunnel Company v. Midway Irrigation Co., 260 U.S. 596 , 43 S.Ct. 215 , 67 L.Ed. 423 .

1931Whether percolating waters in Arizona since the adoption of the Howell Code have been governed by the old English common law in its strictest form, or by the American modification known as the rule of correlative rights, as explained and defined in Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116 , 99 Am.

1907In the latter case, the court say: “The doctrine of appropriation, so called, is not the doctrine of the common law.” The statutes of Nevada adopted the common law of England in the following words: “The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to, or in conflict with, the constitution and laws of the United States, or the constitution and laws of this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state. ” The supreme court of Nevada, in Reno Smelting etc. Co. v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269. 19 Am.