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.
All patents granted, or preemption or homesteads allowed, shall be subject to any vested and accrued water rights, or rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may have been acquired under or recognized by this section.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. City & Cnty. of Denver Ex Rel. Bd. of Water Commissioners, 656 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 5× “253 (now codified in 43 U.S.C. § 661 (1976)). Next, the Act of July 9,1870 made it clear that the rights of patentees of federal lands were subject to the appropriative rights recognized by the 1866 Act: “[A]ll patents granted, or preemption or homesteads allowed, shall be…”
Walker v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 685 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 4× “nize merely a right in use of the license to graze on public lands, allowing those with sufficient water rights to support cattle on such lands to exclude others without a water right____ This Court has never indicated that a person raising cattle pursuant to a license has any…”
The Est. of Wayne Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “See Act of July 26, 1866 ( 43 U.S.C. § 661 ). Shortly after the Hages acquired the ranching operation, disputes arose between the Hages and the government concerning the nature and scope of the Hages’ water rights and grazing permits.”
Hage v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 147 (Fed. Cl. 1996).
· cites it 4× “43 U.S.C. § 661 . Therefore, plaintiffs argue that they have requisite title to the water rights at issue and that their claim is ripe.”
Hage v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
· cites it 4× “In addition, in the 1866 Ditch Rights-of-Way *577 Act, 43 U.S.C.A. § 661 (1999), the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.”
Joe Johnson Co. v. Landen, 738 P.2d 711 (Wyo. 1987).
· cites it 13× “218 (hereinafter 43 U.S.C.A. § 661 ), provides that the United States will recognize an interest in unpatented federal land for the purpose of constructing reservoirs and ditches, and those rights will be preserved in subsequent patents issued by the United States if the…”
Duval Ranching Co. v. Glickman, 965 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Nev. 1997).
· cites it 7× “violated 43 U.S.C. § 661 and regulations issued thereunder by interfering with Plaintiffs’ rights of way.”
Walker v. United States, 162 P.3d 882 (N.M. 2007).
· cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 661 (2000). We must determine if the scope of such a right-of-way includes a forage right under New Mexico law.”
Fed. Power Comm'n v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 (1955).
· cites it 4× “253 , see 43 U. S. C. § 661 . [18] "SEC. 17. . . . all patents granted, or preemption or homesteads allowed, shall be subject to any vested and accrued water rights, or rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may have been acquired under or…”
In Re Water of Hallett Creek Stream Sys., 749 P.2d 324 (Cal. 1988).
· cites it 4× “262; 43 U.S.C. § 661 ) was intended to alleviate these concerns by authorizing miners to explore and occupy the public lands, and by expressly recognizing those rights to the use of water on public lands that had previously been recognized by state law.”
Colvin Cattle Co., Inc. v. United States, 468 F.3d 803 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Its argument begins well enough by stating that under the Mining Act of 1866, 43 U.S.C. § 661 , 2 and the TGA, 43 U.S.C.”
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.