Glavin v. Salmon River Canal Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners

    130 Idaho 727 (Idaho 1997)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that applying water to beneficial use is "a continuing obligation"

    This is a continuing obligation. See Washington County Irrigation Dist. v. Talboy, 55 Idaho 382, 390, 43 P.2d 943, 946 (1935); Glavin v. Salmon River Canal Co., 44 Idaho 583, 589-90, 258 P. 532, 534 (1927). Partial forfeiture makes possible allocation of water consistent with beneficial use concepts.

  2. State, Dept. of Parks v. Idaho Dept. of Water Admin

    96 Idaho 440 (Idaho 1974)   Cited 18 times
    Applying 1971 Idaho statute

    However, in an appropriation without a diversion, the right acquired is not to the stream flow as was the case under the riparian system, but to the use of a specific amount of water which is the subject of the right. That amount must be a reasonable and efficient use of the water. Glavin v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd., 44 Idaho 583, 258 P. 532 (1927); Union Grain Elevator Co. v. McCammon Ditch Co., 41 Idaho 216, 240 P. 443 (1925). With regard to the Malad Canyon appropriation, I.C. ยง 67-4312 provides:

  3. Washington County Irr. Dist. v. Talboy

    55 Idaho 382 (Idaho 1935)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that when water is stored, it becomes "the property of the appropriators ... impressed with the public trust to apply it to a beneficial use"

    " Respondents rely on the case of Glavin v. Salmon River Canal Co., 44 Idaho 583, 258 P. 532, in support of the contention "that the minute appellant was unable to use the water (stored) in any year, it then became public unappropriated water," and that respondents might thereupon use it without let or hindrance and without liability therefor to appellant. The Glavin case is not controlling here.