WSPC01552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001088 .'l < The appropriation made by the predeoessors of the Reservoir Company and confirmed in that company by decree in the adjudication proceeding was for agricultural purposes and the appropriations made by the ditch owners were for agricultural purposes. The appropriation by the former was prior to the a,pprcpriations by the latter, and as all are using the Water for the same purpose. namely, for the irrigation of agricultura.l land, under the clear terms of the Constituticn the former has the better right. L, The COnstitution makes no distinction between appropriations based Upon the mea:ns or instrumentality employed to convey the water to the land. The use of the water for agricultural purpcses is the end in view; reservoirs. canals and ditches are merely the means or instrumentalities whereby the appropriatcr applies the water to the irrigation of agricultural land, that being the purpose for which he appropriated the water. Within the meaning of the constitutional provisions quoted above, there is no such thing as a "reservoir purpose," a "storage purpose," a "canal purpose." or a"ditch purpose.1. < , When the predecessors of the Reservoir Company made their a,ppro- priation. they did so knowing that the Constitution expressly made their rights subordinate to the rights of prior appropriators. Vfhen the later appro- priators appeared, they had full knmvledge of the existence of the prior appropriations. inoluding the appropriation made by the predecessors of the Reservoir Company. They went upon the stream with their eyes open. They ran the risk, whioh all subsequent appropriators run, of having their supply diminished if, by reason of an insufficient supply of water. there is little left after the lawful requirements of prior appropriators have been satisfied. . ! . It is suggested that, as the relator is a corporation, its rights as such are limited by seotion 2355 of Compiled Laws of 1921 to storage of water "when not needed for innnediate use." That provision is capable of the construction given in this opinion to the provision in the Aot of 1879. That the purpose of seotion 2355 is to permit reservoir oorporations to store water of which it has not made an appropriation--water already appropriated by others, but not then needed for immediate use--is made clear by the conCluding words of the seotion: "but this shall not be oonstrued to prevent the appro- priation and use of any water not theretofore utilized and a,pplied to benefioial uses." The aot, of which section 2355 is a part. relates to corporations organized for the purpose of construoting ditches, reservoirs. etc. C. L. 1921 section 2353.) The relator corporation was not organized to construot, nor did it oonstruct a reservoir. The reservoir had already been oonstruoted by landowners, who had made a valid appropr iation of water for irrigation purposes. and who organized the corporation as a mutual reservoir company to take over the reservoir and their appropriations solely for their benefit. Hutual reservoir oompanif;ll are organized. not for profit, but for the convenienoe of their members in the management of the irrigation system and in the distribution to them of water upon their lands in proportion to their interests. Ownership of the shares of stock therein is but inoidental to ownership of the water right. Ireton v. Idaho Irrigation Co., 30 Idaho 310, 317, 164 Pac. 687; Kendrick v. Twin Lakes Reservoir Co., 58 Colo. 281, 144 Pao. 884. And see concurring opinion in Comstock v. Olney Springs Drainage District, 97 Colo. 416, 50 P. (2d) 531, in which the majority of the justices joined. . , In the dissenting opinion in Fort Morgan Reservoir & I. Co. v. McCune, 71 COlo. 256, 272. 206 Pac. 393 is the following statement of the -8-