WSPC00982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001112 , purohase lan.d further awa:y from the source of water supply, say at Colorado Springs, and utilize his appropriation for such land, in turn he may sell and oonvey this lan.d with such water-rights as he may have therefor. And there is nothing to prevent the said oity from purohasing both and thereafter changing the place of use the same as any other appropriator. But why force the city to buy the land if it only needs the water? , An examination of the case in 12 Colo. will show the conclusion there announc- ed to be well supported upon principle and authority. .And it being thereby established that the plaoe of use may be ohanged, it logioally follows that the right to the use of the water for irrigation is a right not so inseparately oonneoted with the land that it may not be separated therefrom. The right has been treated and held as a property right in nUlllflrous oases. In Kidd v. Laird, 15 Cd. 16l, it is saidl "The oourt has never departed from the doctrine that running water, so long as it oontinues to flow in its natural oourse, is not and oannot be made the subject of private ownership. A right may be acquired to its use whioh will be regarded and protected as property, but it has been dis- tinctly declared in suoh cases that the right oarries with it no speoifio pro- perty in the water itself." Mr. Gould in his work on water-rights, at seotion 234 says, "The right to water acquired by priority is the subject of property and mtW be sold and conveyed. . .. ." "The exolusive right to divert and use the vrater of a stream, as well as the ditoh or other structure through whioh the diversion is effeoted, may be trans- ferred and conveyed like other property or rights analogous to property." Pom- eroy on Riparian Rights, par. 58. The authorities seem to oonour in the oonolusion that the priority to the use of water is a property right. To limit its transfer as contended by appellee would in many instanoes destroy much of its value. It may happen that the soil for whioh the original appropriation was made has been washed frNay and lost to the owner, as the result of a freshet or otherwise. To say under such ciroum- stanoes that he oould not sell the water-right to be used upon other lan.d would be to deprive him of all benefits from such right. He grant that the water itself is the property of the publio; its use, however, is subjeot to appropria- tion, and in this case it is conceded that the owner has the paramount right to suoh use. In our opinion this right may be transferred by sale so long as the rights of others, as in this oase, are not injuriously e.:f'feoted thereby. It' the priority to the use of water for agriou1 tural purposes is a right of property, then the right to sell it is as essential and sacred as the right to possess and use. Blaokstone saysl "The third absolute right inherent in every Englishman is that of property, whioh consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all his aoquisitions without a:n:y control or diminution save Only by the lalVs of the land." Blaokstone, book 1, p. 138. What difference oan it make to others whether the owner of the priority in this case uses it upon his own lend or sells it to others to be used upon other lands? There is no claim of waste occuring betvleen the present points of diversion and tffi place where the city is to take the water. Where a material waste results from the ohange, a new feature is introduced -whioh need not be con- sidered here. In chapter 5 of Angell on ITater-courses, a number of instances are cited where -at common law water-rights were deolared to be the subject of sale, -6-