PROJ00223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OMID records that the present-day Mutual Mesa Lateral was completed at a later date. A map attached to the 1917 Report shows the Mutual Mesa Lateral as a contemplated extension of Canal No. 1. Further, a map attached to a 1955 u.s. Bureau of Reclamation Rehabilitation and Betterment Report of the OMID system incudes a map clearly showing the Mutual Mesa Lateral in its present-day location as a permanent feature of the OMID system. OMID has continuously operated the system in its present configuration since its completion. 2. Applicable Law. Like title to other interests in real property, an easement for an irrigation ditch may be obtained through adverse possession. In order to obtain title by adverse possession, the use relied upon to establish the easement must be adverse, under claim of right, open and notorious, and continuous for the complete eighteen year adverse possession period. Raftopoulos v. Monger, 656 P.2d 1308 (Colo. 1983); Abrams v. Colwell, 243 P.6l5 (Colo. 1926). Colorado law also recognizes the doctrine of executed license with respect to easements for water conveyance facilities. That doctrine, as set forth by the Colorado Supreme Court in several cases, holds that where permission to construct a ditch is granted, and the ditch owner relies on that permission in constructing and operating the ditch, an easement for the ditch arises, and the owner of the land may not deny the existence of that easement. Further, and of particular importance to the Mutual Mesa Lateral, when the ditch has been in existence for an appreciable length of time, consent to its original construction is presumed. See Shrull v. Rapasardi, 517 p.2d 860 (Colo. 1973) and Leonard v. Buerger, 276 P.2d (Colo. 1954). 3. Conclusions. The Mutual Mesa Lateral has most likely been in continuous operation in its current location since the OMID system was completed in the late 1920's. At the very least, the 1955 map referenced above clearly establishes that the ditch has been in operation since that date. Under those circumstances, consent to its original construction must be presumed, with the easement for the ditch's operation resulting from reliance on that permission under the doctrine of executed license. The same is true of both those sections of the ditch originally part of other systems and those portions newly constructed. The easement would be of sufficient width of accommodate the necessary operation and maintenance of the structure for which permission was granted. See the cases cited above and Colo. Rev. Stat. ~ 37-86-102 & 103. In the alternative, OMID's open, continuous operation of the ditch for over seventy years, the last forty of which are clearly documented, gives rise to an ill-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I