Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Great Western proposed to use the reservoir water <br />attributable its shares outside of the system where it had <br />historically taken the water. The Court ruled that Great <br />Western was entitled to make the proposed change, but only if the <br />remaining shareholders in the ditch system were protected in a <br />way which would ensure the continued receipt of the water to <br />which they were entitled under their shares. Typically, in order <br />to accomplish the requisite protection, the person seeking to <br />make the change can only take the historical consumptive use and <br />also must leave enough water in the system to cover the head <br />necessary to carry water down the ditch and that portion of <br />storage and carriage losses which occurred in the system <br />attributable to its shares, so that the historic amount of water <br />deliveries to other shareholders remaining on the ditch can be <br />maintained following the removal of the transferred waters, ~ <br />Las Animas consolidated canal Company v. Allen, supra, 688 P.2d <br />at 1107; Model ~and and Irriqation Co. v. Madsen, 87 Colo. 166, <br />168-169, 285 P.1100 (1930). <br /> <br />Despite the general principle of marketplace <br />transferability of water rights in Colorado, the bylaws of some <br />agricultural ditch companies prohibit or restrict the removal of <br />water from the ditch system or any change in point of diversion <br />or use. Such provisions are meant to preserve the integrity of <br />the company for agricultural purposes and to provide an extra <br />measure of protection to shareholders of the Company. Such extra <br />protection consists mainly of keeping farmers out of the <br />expensive litigation involved in water rights transfers, by <br />impeding such transfers in the first place. Ordinarily, ditch <br />companies and their shareholders must oppose proposed transfers <br />in water court, in order to protect the rights of those remaining <br />on the ditch. Reasonable restrictions to removal of water from <br />the ditch or change of use have been upheld, Fort Lyon Canal <br />Company v. Catlin Canal Company, 642 P.2d 501, 508 (Colo. 1982); <br />Model Land and Irriqation Co. v. Madsen, supra, 87 Colo. at 168. <br />Municipalities contemplating a purchase ,of agricultural shares <br /> <br />-10- <br />