Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Holbrook District v. Ft. Lyon Canal Co. <br />Pac. 269, Pages 57J4-58liJ,. <br /> <br />"11. The statute'recognizes two classes of appropriation for irrigation, one <br />for ditches diverting water directly from the stream, and one for the storage of water, <br />to be used subsequently. Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Co. v. Huppe, 60 Colo. 535, 155 <br />P. 386, New Loveland, etc., Co. v. Cons. etc., Ditch Co. supra. These cases' are <br />authority for the proposition that an appropriation for one of such purpose is not an <br />apprcpriation for the other. This being so, there is all the more reason why a mere <br />inchoate right or claim for storage should not under the doctrine of relation be per- <br />mitted to ripen into a decree for the two purposes, with priority df'ating from the beginning <br />of work fer storage only, and thus put an additional burden on the stream not contemplated <br />when the approp'iation was initiated. This is in keeping with the rule of definiteness <br />and certainty, required of those who seek the benefit of the doctrine of relation, the <br />principle stated in Fruitland Irrigation Co. v. Kruemling, and Baca, etc., Co, v, Hcdel, etc. <br />Coo, supraq <br /> <br />The original map and statement claiming work by original survey of the storage canal <br />sho~ that the purpose was to take water through it from the Arkansas River, for storage <br />in Horse Creek and Adobe Creek reservoirs. It'was to have been a feeder canal only, and <br />the company got storage priorities for such water in these two reservoir$, on proof that <br />the canal and reservoi~s, were part of the same storage system, and that the original survey <br />and subsequent wcrk on the canal was for the benefit of such reservoirs. We think it WIllS:, <br />and are disposed to allow the credit. But late~ the company' decideru to use the can~ <br />for both of such purposes, and was awarded priorities for both by originml construction. <br />This ..as right: as to storage: but wrong as to direct irrigation." <br /> <br />"'(6} 12. The decrees to the several reservoirs. should have been limited to one <br />annual filling for each reservoir. Windso~ Res. & Canal Co, v. Lake Supp1y Ditch Co., <br />44 Colla. 214, 98 f. 729." <br /> <br />"As pointed out in Sterling Irrigation Co. v. Downer, 19 Colo. 595, 598, 36 P. <br />787, the statutory proceeding to adjudicate priori ties' of right to the use of water <br />is not an ordinary civil action or proceeding; it is a proceeding sui generis, to <br />which the rules governing ordinary civil actions are not always applicable. And wholly <br />am de from.. <br /> <br />"There willlI be allowed' but one annual filling of said reservoir, from whatever <br />sources,the water may be derived." <br /> <br />2544 <br />