upr000318 141

Waters appropriated to beneficial use be coxae the private Jr. property of the appropriator* San Joaquin & Kings Kiver Canal & Irrigation Co*' v. County of Stanislaus, 233 U.S. 454-8; 58 L.Ed.lQ41; Palmer v# H«R*Com»pf Cal., 136 Pae*997; Lux v* Hagen, 69 Cal. 255, at p.374 et seq; In Monticit© Valley Co# v. Santa Barbara, 144 Cal, 578, at page 594, it is said! "In this state a corporation*s title te water, either by appropriation or prescription, has been recogniz­ed and upheld from the very earliest date", citing oases. In Thayer v* Cal*Develepsient Co#, 164 Cal. 117, at page 125, it is said! "Under the law of this state as established ginning, the water-right which a person gains by dive rasti otnh ef rboem­a oswtnreerasmh ifpo ra an d bedniesfpiocsiiatilo uns eb y ish ima, prais vaitne threi g‘hcta,s e a ofr igohtth ers upbrjievcatt et o prreofpeerr ttye# it Aliln ttheer msd ewchiisciho nsc anr echaovgen izneo oitt heasr mseuachn#i ng Matnhya n oft hatth emth e right is private property", citing cases. Allen v. R.P.Com#, 179 Gal# 68, at page 90, where Judge Wilbur says in a dissenting opinion in which he dissents from cer­tain fundamentals! MI concur in the main opi-on in so far as it holds that a right to water • • • is a private right# It was so held in Thayer v# Cal*Development Co. 164 Cal. 117, and the sub­sequent constitutional amendments and statutes must be held to have been adopted in view of that decision*. In Pioneer Irrigation Co. v. Board of Com.of Yuma County, Cels., 236 Fed. 790, it is said; "He whs applies the water thus diverted to a beneficial use acquires a property right in the use