WSPC06937

• File Number: 8402.400.10
• Description: Platte River Basin-River Basin Basic Hydrology-Transmountain Diversions Imports-Blue South Platte
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 2/17/1942
• Title: Blue South Platte Project 1942-1955-Adjudication in Federal District Court of Colorado of Water Priority Rights in Connection with Colorado Big Thompson Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

It will be observoo. that the cases in Colorado are in line with

Iokes v. Fox et al., 300 U. S. 82, in 'tIhich the court held ae to water

rights f'or irrigation purposes that "the water rights became the property

of' the landowners, whelly distinct tram the property right of' the governmont

in the 1rriga tion work.."

Casel in Colorado unUormly hold that in general adjudication proceoo.-

ingl and in the equity cases f'requently brought by one or more parties to

occure an injunction against interterence with clalJned superior r~ts, the

=ers or the water rights, where there il a ccrpomtion, should be repr....

sentoo. by the corporation, mether a carrier corporation 01' a Imltual corpor-

ation. The oases hold also that ths users and etockholders ars not necessary

01' proper parties plaintitf' 01' dcf'endant.

A ditch company, whether a Imltual 01' Ollrrier corporation is a trustee

01' agency having the privUege and duty or protecting the rights or the water

uoers and water right =ers under the ditch"

Rererence 111 made to the LaJunta cue in 1I!lich it AS held that II cor-

poration blls no interest in the property except "i;hat 01' a DlLkoo., legal

truBteo."

In The F'a1'nlcr~ Independent Ditch Co. v. The Agl'icultural Ditch Co.,

ct al., 22 Colo. 513, 45 P. 444, it \7Ils held that "a oorporation "'Illing

and operating a ~.tch becOlllCs a trustee tor its stockholders and is bound

to protect their interests."

In the Wyatt case, tho court stated that "the consumer undez' a ditch

+ + + is an appropriator 1"1'om the natlU'lll stream, through the inte1'lll<ldiate

llgency of' the ditch.,"

In Randall V. The Rocky Ford Ditch Co., et al., 29 Colo. 430, 4033,

68 P. 240, it ""s held, with respect to a ditch Comp<Uly controlling and

operating a ditch SUpplying tho consumers thereunder, that "It is the duty

of' that company to take all neoessary steps to proteot the rights 01' the

eonsume%'fl 01' wo.ter under its ditch,,'

That a 'Cater IIdjudication ~oceoo.ing is not an 01'l11n.11ry civil action,
but"a proceed1ng sui gener1s. to 'tIhich the rules governing ordinary oivil

actions are not always applicable", ""s held in Sterling Irrigation Co. v.

Downer, 19 Colo. 695, 36 P. 787.

-5-

2553