THK COMMON LAW OF IRRIGATION. 477 



conclusive (unless there be some element of estoppel) 

 must be so very strong as to scarcely be susceptible of 

 explanation. The party will not be held to have sur- 

 rendered a valuable right, except upon evidence reason- 

 ably clear and satisfac5lory. 



Rominger vs. Squires, Supra 



Doubtless a party may also lose his right by non- 

 use, and as the right is regarded as realty, it is prob- 

 able that by analogy, at least, the laws of limitation 

 and prescription apply; it seems that acquiescence in 

 adverse use during the period fixed by the statutes of 

 limitation would bar the right. 



The continual use of water for beneficial purposes is 

 essential to the existence of the right; and when the 

 right is lost either by abandonment or non-use, it goes 

 either to the next prior appropriator or reverts to the 

 public. 



It is not believed that a user for any length of time 

 will give title by prescription or limitation as against 

 the government. 



Union Ms. M. Co. vs. Ferris, 2 Saw. 176 



Matthews vs. Ferrea, 45 Cal. 51 



Ogburn vs. Comer, 46 Id. 346 



Van Sickle vs. Hains, 7 Nev. 24 ) 



