State, Dept. of Parks v. IDAHO DEPT, WATER ADMIN.
Idaho Supreme Court
1DissentMcQUADE, Justice
I join in the dissent of Justice McFadden, but feel compelled to address myself to an issue which was not passed upon in his dissent. I do not agree with the majority’s position that there may be created a valid appropriative water right in the absence of an actual physical diversion of the water from its natural locus or condition.
A diversion is generally required in order to perfect water rights by appropriation.1 Hutchins in his treatise on water rights in the western states2 quotes with approval the following language from a California case,
“To constitute a valid appropriation of water,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Nielson v. ParkerIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Clough v. WingArizona Supreme Court · 1888
- Sand Point Water & Light Co. v. Panhandle Development Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1905
- Sherlock v. GreavesMontana Supreme Court · 1938
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.