ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1866 Not a Grant for water
Mineral Estate G...
post Jul 3 2014, 04:07 PM
Post #1


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 12-February 09
Member No.: 6,851



It's better than a grant.
It's a pre-existing right of possession, a valid claim, requiring protecton of government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...8&invol=645

The Mining Act of 1866 was not itself a grant of water rights pursuant to federal law. Instead, as this Court observed, the Act was "`a voluntary recognition of a preexisting right of possession, constituting a valid claim to its continued use.'" United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., supra, at 705. Congress intended "to recognize as valid the customary law with respect to the use of water which had grown up among the occupants of the public land under the peculiar necessities of their condition." 10 Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670, 684 (1875). See Broder v. Water Co., supra, at 276; Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U.S. 453, 459 -461 (1879). 11 [438 U.S. 645, 657]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Jul 4 2014, 04:58 AM
Post #2


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



Thankyou Mr. M.E.G. and have a Happy 4th of July!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fenixsmom
post Jul 4 2014, 05:37 PM
Post #3


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 13-January 14
From: Lakewood, Colorado
Member No.: 116,305



Good to know! Thank you for sharing this nugget of knowledge!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:16 PM