US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Under the laws of Idaho relating to appropriation of water, the extent of beneficial use is an inherent and necessary limitation upon the right to appropriate, and one who appropriates does not have further right to the current of the stream for the purpose of obtaining power to distribute the water required for the beneficial use which is the basis of his appropriation.

There is no rule of riparian rights in Idaho by which one whose land borders on a stream can appropriate the whole current thereof for the purpose of making fruitful the limited appropriation of water to which he is entitled for beneficial use.

The federal courts below rightly followed the decisions of the state courts of Idaho in holding that the common law doctrine of riparian rights had been abrogated to the extent that the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of Idaho in regard to the right of appropriators for beneficial use are in conflict therewith.

In this case, held that one who had lawfully appropriated the amount of water from a stream in Idaho to which he was lawfully entitled for beneficial use could not restrain those below him from raising the river so as to interfere with the power necessary to raise the water appropriated by him to a height necessary for distribution over his land; neither his appropriation nor his riparian rights gave him any control over the current of the stream.

161 F. 43 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the extent of the right to appropriate water in Idaho, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 224 U. S. 114