30 U.S.C. § 51
Water users’ vested and accrued rights; enumeration of uses; protection of interest; rights-of-way for canals and ditches; liability for injury or damage to settlers’ possession
Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right-of-way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed; but whenever any person, in the construction of any ditch or canal, injures or damages the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage.1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1927–2023 · leading case: Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Prods. Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978).
Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Prods. Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978). “” 30 U. S. C. § 51 . 9 In 1870, Congress again emphasized its view that water rights derive from “local” law, not federal law, making “[a]ll patents granted .”
State v. Sw. Colorado Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983). “251 , 253 (codified at 30 U.S.C. § 51 (1976)); [9] Act of July 9, 1870, ch.”
Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States, 156 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2007). “§ 51 , provided: Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the…”
Walker v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 222 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “2d 570 (1978) (discussing Congress’ early regulation of federal land) (citing 30 U.S.C. § 51 ). 6 ****6 This Act, however, “was not itself a grant of water rights pursuant to federal law.”
United States v. Est. of E. Wayne Hage, 810 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 661 (1866); 30 U.S.C. § 51 (1866)). But we made clear that an owner of water rights possessed a right of way only for those diversionary purposes.”
Kinross Copper Corp. v. State, 981 P.2d 833 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “Congress recognized the rule of prior appropriation in the Mining Act of 1866, 30 USC § 51 (1994), which provides: “Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining * * * have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local…”
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950). “§ 661 , first paragraph — for second paragraph of section 661 see Act of July 9, 1870, included in this compilation; 30 U.S.C.A. § 51 . . 2 Act of July 9, 1870, 16 Stat.”
Roy Hunter v. United States, 388 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1967). “251 , 253 (30 USCA § 51 and note 43 USCA § 661, par.”
First State Bank of Alamogordo v. McNew, 269 P. 56 (N.M. 1928). “…there seems, however, to be one exception. Sections 2339 and 2340, Rev. Stat. U. S. (Comp. Stat. §§ 4647 and 4648 [30 USCA §§ 51, 52; 43 USCA § 661]), provide as follows: ■ “Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural,…”
Rybachek v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 904 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990). “See 30 U.S.C. § 51 (1982) ("Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts,…”
United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “§ 2339 (1875), 30 U.S.C.A. § 51 (1952) ; Act of July 9, 1870, Rev.”
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 380 F. Supp. 452 (D. Mont. 1974). “30 U.S.C. § 51 . The Allotment Act of 1904 was subsequently amended on a number of occasions to further implement the policy of allotment and settlement on the Flathead Reservation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.