an owner or in possession of land in order to make a valid appropriation for irrigation purposes. 45 Mont. at 175, 122 P. at 582 (emphasis added). Finally, this Court addressed the right to appropriate water on federal lands in St. Onge v. Blakely, holding as follows: The right to use water may be owned without regard to the title to the land upon which the water is used; it is a possessory right which may be acquired by appropriation and diversion for a beneficial use; such a right can be acquired by a squatter on public lands .... 76 Mont at 18, 254, P. at 537. Finally, Wells A. Hutchins addressed the rule in Montana, explaining: The Montana rule does not require fee simple title in the appropriator to land to be irrigated under his right. It does apparently contemplat 4 (1905) (<HOLDING>); Hays v. Buzard, 31 Mont. 74, 77 P. 423 (1904)
holding that subsequent patent did not convey lands that had previously been appropriated it is a familiar principle of public land law that statutes providing generally for disposal of the public domain are inapplicable to lands which are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition because they have been appropriated to some other purpose the general words of the granting act are to be read as subject to such exception holding that land that is permanently appropriated to an inconsistent use is abandoned recognizing validity of water right appropriated to irrigate land appropriator only occupied on public domain recognizing validity of water rights appropriated on public domain for use on school trust land even though appropriator did not own or intend to patent place of use holding that appropriation protects the right of an earlier appropriator to the extent of his beneficial use against a later appropriator