- 22 -
from the property right of the government in the
irrigation works. * * *
As stated, the water rights and allocations involved in both
Nevada and Ickes were based on the Reclamation Act passed by
Congress in 1902. Thereunder, it was expressly provided that
"the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of
this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and
beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of
the right." Ch. 1093, sec. 8, 32 Stat. 390.
Consistently with the above statutory language, the
underlying contracts involved in Nevada between the U.S.
Government and the landowners provided generally “for a permanent
water right for the irrigation of and to be appurtenant to all of
the irrigable area now or hereafter developed under the [Newlands
Reclamation Project]”. Nevada v. United States, supra at 127
n.9. Similarly, the underlying contracts involved in Ickes
between the U.S. Government and the landowners provided generally
that the “rights shall be, and thereafter continue to be, forever
appurtenant to designated lands owned by such shareholders.”
Ickes v. Fox, supra at 89.
Petitioners argue that the above language from Nevada and
Ickes supports a conclusion that the Harquahala Valley
landowners’ water rights under the Subcontract were appurtenant
to the landowners’ land.
Respondent relies on the same cases and emphasizes
differences in the relevant Federal law and the underlying
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011