WSPC03990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0011 [j 2 ;. sumers using VI ateI' for the irrigation of farm lands, it is not neoessary to determine, 80S it appears to us that when the rights of the various oonsUlllllrs are adjudioated in aooordanoe with the rules of laiv announoed in this opinion, all parties to the prooeeding entitled to water for striotly irrigation pur- poses will be supplied, and that there will still be a oonsiderable surplus le1"t in the priorities awarded the ditch, the right to the use of whioh for irrigation purposes is not involved at this ttme. , In 1894 the several oonsumers, inoluding the oity, were taking practl- oally all the wa'ver the ditoh oould furnish. At that time the oity provided in oontracts entered into with the oonsumers that the use of water oontraotc for should be subjeot to the needs and requirements of the oity 80S a user, and in many of them it was provided that the use should be only for the year mentioned in the oontract. Generally speaking, these oontraots were signed under protest. 80S Water Vias refused oonsumers unles" they signed oontracts oontaining these limitations. This brings us to the oonsider!l:t5.on of two qCc'lstions, namelYI The validity of the limitations mentioned in the oonk,.'_,-:;s; and whether the oity, by gradually oeasing the use of water up to about J t99, lost any of its rights. . At the time the oity Vias exaoting these oon',;r.aots it was the bene- fioial owner of the ditoh and had been for somethint, like 18 years. Its use of water as a contraot oonsumer was continuous e!l.ch year from the time it first began to apply water to the irrigation of shade trees on the stree'c", of the oity. Ylhen it beoame the benefioial owner of the ditoh this use was oontinued without interruption, exoept that same ti~~ in the nineties, the volume it used was to some extent deoreased. It intended, however. to resulllll the full use later. .AJ3 stated. the oontract. under consideration were exeouted subjeot to the needs and requirements of the oity as a user. .AJ3 to oonsumers entitled to water from the ditoh by virtue of prior user, we think these oonditions were invalid in so far as they related to the volume which such oonsumers were e-atitled to have turned out to them. for the reason that to this extent their rights had attaohed. and they c culd not be deprived of them llnless they voluntarily oonsented. .AJ3 to any exoess water for whioh tOOse oonsumers contracted by contracts containing these limitations, or as to those whose rights were initiated under these contracts, too limitations imposed must be treated as a lease of the water, the right to the use of which the oity had theretofore aoquired and, therefore. to this extent are valid. rle are also of the opinion that the use of water under these contraots by oonsumers. bound by the limitations imposed, preserved the status of the city the same as though it had utilized the water covered by these contraots for its OVnl needs. In other words. by these oontracts it leased its rights to the water which it had acquired as a oonsumer above that neoessary for its pr3,ent needs. and hence preserved them to all intents and purposes exactly as though it had oontinued the use of such water. The Caohe La Poudre 11'. Co. v. Larimer and Weld Co., 25 Colo. 144. 53 Pac. 318, 71 Am. st. 123. , In fixing the rights of the consumers the trial court apparently aware.",' the early oonsumers or their suooessors the right to have the volume to whic:. they were entitled supplied out of the first priority awarded the ditch; others the right to the use of the water from the seoond priority; and still -10-