WSPC06937 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"Moreover, 1I'e thin)( the statute, 1n co far as it relates to the person who JlJB.y prny for n change, has the same mea:ning as U it had provided that 'every pereon, assooiation or corporation dosirous 01' cbtlnging, 1n 1I'hole or 1n part, the po1nt 01' diversion 01' any _ter 11h1ch he or it baa the right to divert frOJll /mY of the streams of the state, shall preeent a petition,' etc." Another 1nteresting and well-defined aspect 01' an adjudication pro- oeeding, 'IIh1ch tends to make the proceeding sui ganerie. is that adjudica- tion decrees 1n Colorado 1UlUOrmly adjudicate the right to the use 01' water to the ditch, ressrvoir or other 8truct=e, and not to any 1ndividua1, whether a corporation or a natural pereon. The cases go so far as to hold time and aga1n that the court 1n an adjudication proceeding has no jur18- diotion to determine the rights of variou& individuals 1n and to the use 01' the water. All proceedings for the detercdnntion of the respective rights of the vnrious individuals 1n and to the use of the wnters carried through the ditch or to the reservoir must be separate and dict1nct frOJll the adjudi- cation proceeding. In The Farmer. Independent Ditch Co. case, supraJ the court held that "the statute provides for l\ decree aWlU'ding prioritiee to the several ditches apA not to those clnlm1~g water under the ditches." (524) One 01' tho late statements 01' the rule 18 found 1n Robinson, et ILl. v. Alfal1'n Ditch Co. et al., 89 Colo. 567, 5S8, 5 P. 2d 1115, the language of the court being, "We have held repeatedly that decrees under the water ndjudica- tion statute determino only the pricrities of the several ditches and the amcunt of water awarded theretol that 1n such prooee-Hng.IJ the oourt bas no jurisdiotion to determine ownership or property rip;hts 1n the ditches, or to determine who haa the right to use the water a_rdad to the various ditches. The citation of one case 11111 auf- fice.Oppenlander v. Left Hand. Ditch Co. 18 Colo. 142, 31 Pac. 854. In its 'iiter decree 01' ll389, there1'ore, tf.e oourt did not attempt to determine the question n01l' submitted to us.. To the s8me effect A1~ Dallett v. Cnrpenter, et al., 37 Colo. ~, 86 P. 317, Evans v. Swan, et al., 38 Colo. 92, 88 P. 149, O'Neil, et &1. v. Lyon Canal Co., 39 Colo. 487, 90 p. 849. It uny be po1nted out that one of the ree.sone for the rule tha=t the ditch corporation alone is a proper party 1& one of practioal convenience. The Supreme Court 1n the Farmers Independent Ditch CASe po1nted out that, under some 01' the ditohes 1n this State "there are thousands 01' conSUlllers, and it would be impracticable, by resoon 01' their number alone, to make them parties to a proceeding like the one before us. II ~'he court continued, saying, hMoreover., _ BUch consumers ehnrlge from year to ;rear, and th18 furnishes an Additional reason aga1nst the contention 01' defendants 1n error. U -8- ?t";)":>O