Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />oontinues to be the own"", thereo~, so long ao pa~ents are not 1n <br /> <br />de1'ault. Ot oourse, moot d1tch oorporat10ns in Colorado are J!lUtUAl oom- <br /> <br />panies. But the rule 18 the sarno 1n both CaSGB. The users under the <br /> <br />oarr1sr ditch IUd t!le usors and stookholders under the IllUtUD.l d1tch, and <br /> <br />.not the oorporntlon in either ense, = the water r1ghts. <br /> <br />In Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irr1gat10n Co., 10 Colo. 582,588, <br /> <br />17 P. 487, 1t was held that a Ollrr1er ditoh corporation does not beoomo <br /> <br />the "propriotor" ot tho wnter d1verted and carried, and that it hao no <br /> <br />ownership 1n the use ot t'later. <br /> <br />In Wyatt, et al. v. Larimer and Weld Irrig. Co., et al., 18 Colo. <br /> <br />298, ~08. 33 P. 14.4. we find th.e tollOlfing statement b,. the oourt I <br /> <br />"But + + + we teel impelled to express our + + + adherenoe <br />to the dootrine heretofore annaunclld by this court in relatlon to <br />tho status 01' nAnsl compnnieo organized tor the purpose ot oarry- <br />ing .....tcr tor gene1'&J. purposes or lrrigatlon. We adhere to tho <br />doctrino t.b.at such a O"na1 compe.ny 10 not the proprietor of the <br />""ter diverted by 1t but that it IlIWlt be regarded as an 1nter- <br />med1ate agoncy e.x1stlng ror the purpose or aiding consumern in <br />the eJterc1se 01' their eonstltutional r1ghts, as well as a pr1vate <br />enterprise pJ:'oseauted ror the bene.f1t or its owners." <br /> <br />The court 1'urther stated in the Wyatt cane, 3161 <br /> <br />"The oons"""'r under a d1tch + + + is an appropriator trom <br />the natural stream, tr.rough tho inter",ecUate agenoy or the <br />ditch + + -to + " <br /> <br />Thia statement is found in YiI'1ght v. Platte Valley Irr1C. Co., <br /> <br />23 Colo. 322J 61 P. 600 I <br /> <br />"A ditch company is not tho OW11el' of _ter it Mverte <br />tI'>.r~ its d1tch and 1'urnishes to users under oontracts nth <br />them. <br /> <br />In IA JUnta and """"t' Canal Co. v. Hess, at al., 31 Colo. 1. 71 <br /> <br />P. 415, it ...... held t.'>at <br /> <br />"A mutual d1tch corporllt10n holding title to an irrigatlon eyotem <br />ror the bcne1'it ot consumers is but a trustee tor these water <br />right owners + + + So tar as any interost in the property Was <br />oonoerned, th1a nell' companY' bad none, eave 9.8 a naked. legal tr41stee." <br /> <br />That a consumer under a carrier ditch is lrested wlth the logal title <br /> <br />to the _ter right, and that the "rights of a conllU1l\er, undor a d1tch which <br /> <br />18 operated as a carrier, are d1otinot from the rights 01' the carrier as to <br /> <br />such casement" "". stated 10 The Gutholl Park Investment Co. v. Tho Town or <br />I4ontCllalr, 52 Colo. 420, 76 P. 1050. It was there hold that a coaswner under <br />the ditch owned by a carr1er ditch corpo,.atlon 13 vested With title to the <br /> <br />water r1ght. <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />2554 <br /> <br />