WSPC03990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001096 , were purchased by the original company. In 1883, under a statutory adjudi- cation of water rights for the purpose of irrigation, the ditch was awarded priority No.1, of date November 28, 1860, for so much water, 18 inches in depth, as would flow through a ditch having a grade of four and one-half feet to the mile. ten feet wide on the bott.om and thirteen feet wide at the tOPI also two other priorities, dated respectively November I, 1873. and Ma.\'ch 7. lC81. It is not necessary. hOlvever, to state the volume awarded by these t\vo priorities, as these matters are not material to any questions presented for determination at this time. It is the right to the use of water represented by these priorities which is involved. The testimony introduced by the respective parties bearing on this subjeot is exceedingly VOluminous, oovering several thousand foliOS, and the abstract of the record proper and testimony oonsists of over seven hundred pages. It is evident the oourt disposed of the case upon an entirely erron- eous theory, greatly to the prejudioe of appellant, and perhaps other parties to the aotion; but as the parties are numerous. and to go through the testi- mony with the care necessary to properly determine their respeotive rights would require a very considerable time. w'e shall only state in a general way so much of the testimony as may be neoessary to direct attention to the material facts upon which the rights of the parties depend under the rules of law applicable, it being our purpose to merely deolare, in conneotion with the principal facts, such principles of law as will serve to point out the errors committed, and enable the trial court. from the pleadings and testimony reported by the referee. to determine the material facts in detail and render a correot decree. At an early date indiViduals began to tal:e water from the ditch for the purpose of irrigating lands. The water thus obtained was secured under contraots entered into from time to time, bet\1een this olass of consumers and the then owners of the ditch. These contracts were only for the irrigating season during the year they were executed; that is, they only covered the irrisating season for the year they were _de. The testimony disoloses that in many instances. at least, the use of water by these consumers was intermittent; that is. they would ccntract fer and use it a year or so, and thon cease to contraot for or use it for a period. when they would again resume the use of water in the same intermittent way. On this testimcny the court held that these consumers were in no wise affected by the oontracts made with either the city or its predecessors, for the reason that they were appropriators, to all intents and purposes, from the river, with the right in the city to exact a reasonable compensation for carriage, and that the rights thus acquired vested and oontinued from the date the oonsumers or their predecessors first utilized water from the ditch unless lost by abandonment. Error is assigned on this ruling. The original company was organized to divert and carry water for mechanical, agricultural, mining and city purposes, but so far as e:ny question is involved in this case with respect to the priorities aYlarded it, we think it and its successors in interest, sO far as the rights of the individual oonsumers are involved, must be treated as an irrigation oanal oompany, carrying water for hire. Suoh a company is a quasi public carrier for the purpose of oonveying water from natural streams to places where it -4"