|
<br />001097
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />may be applied to a beneficial use. It is not the proprietor of the water
<br />which it is entitled to divert, but must be regarded as an intermediate
<br />agency existing for the purpose of aiding consumers in the exercise of
<br />their rights to appropriate water,. as well as a private enterprise prose outed
<br />for its benefit.--Farmers' I.D. Co. v. Agrioultural D. Co. 22 Colo. 513,
<br />45 Pac. 444, 55 Am. St. Rep. 149; Wright v. Platte Valley I. Co., 27 Colo.
<br />322, 61 Pao. 603; ',iheeler v. Northern Colo. I Co., 10 Colo. 582, 17 Pac.
<br />487, 3 Am. st. Rep. 6CB; riyatt v. Larimer & Weld I. Co" 18 Colo. 298,
<br />33 Pao. 144, 36 Am. St. Rep. 280.
<br />
<br />A oonsumer supplied with water by contract from a ditch owned and
<br />operated by a carrier company in a sense is an appropriator from the stream
<br />supplying the ditch, but does not occupy the exact status of an independent
<br />appropriator directly from the streo:m, as his rights are limited by the term.~
<br />of his contract, so far as valid, with the ditch company, as vlell as other
<br />limitations whioh the law, from the nature of the relation b etlveen the carriel"
<br />company and a contraot consumer from its ditch, i.Inposes. Tiright v. Platte
<br />Valley I. Co., supra; City and County of Denver v. Valker, 45 Colo. 387, 101
<br />Pac. 348.
<br />
<br />Having contracted for and beneficially used for irrigation purposes
<br />a specific volume of water for any particular year. without any valid
<br />limi tation as to f',xl;u.re use, he would be entitled to the SllJlle volu!Ilfl each
<br />year succeeding, when needed for the purposes of irrigation, upon tender,
<br />annually, without intermission, of the rate which the company could lawfull:y
<br />eXB.llt, and compliance with its rules and regulations, so far as reasonable.
<br />Northern Colo. I. Co. v. Richards, 22 Colo. 450, 45 Pao. 234; Sec. 2297,
<br />2 Mills' Stats.
<br />
<br />When, however, his contract expires "by limitation, and is not renewed,
<br />and he does not take the necessary steps to presenve the status growing out
<br />of' his contractual relation with the carrier, his rights to a future use of
<br />water from the ditch cannot be based upon past use. In other words, his
<br />contract with the carrier is for carriage, and his rights are limited by its
<br />tel'l!l5, so far as valid, to the volume of water for the period mentioned
<br />in his contract. On the expiration of his contract he may be entitled to
<br />have it renewed, unless inhibited by a valid provision therein; but if a
<br />legal demand for that purpose is not made, he is in the same pcsition as
<br />though he had never taken water from the ditch.
<br />
<br />A consideration of the duties and obligations of carrier ditch
<br />companies conveying water for irrigation purposes for hire and the rights
<br />of contraot users and others who can beneficially apply water from the
<br />canals of such companies to the irrigation of lands, will demonstrate that
<br />the rights of contract users of water from companies of that character are
<br />measured and limited as indicated. When such a company has water subject to
<br />its control, bona fide applicants are entitled to its use for irrigation
<br />purposes upon tender of the lawful rate for carriage and compliance with
<br />the reasonable rules of the oarrier. Combs v. Agricultural D. Co., 17 Colo.
<br />146, 28 Pac. 966, 31 Am. St. Rep. 275; Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Colo.
<br />:1.44, 6 Pac. l42; TIheeler v. Northern Colo. I. Co., supra.
<br />
<br />-,..
<br />
|