WSP00062 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'':I M 0) <..:; :~ (.:) Catlin Canal Co., 642 P.2d 501 (Colo. 1982). This is to say, a shareholder in a mutual irrigation company can have his water diverted from a natural stream at a place other than the headgate of the mutual irrigation company. However, by diverting his water outside of the irrigation company's system, a shareholder does not relieve himself of the obligation to pay assessments. Wadsworth Ditch Co. v. Brown, 39 Colo. 57, 88 P. 1060 (1907). One should also note that a mutual irrigation company has the power to adopt bylaws which restrict the ability of a shareholder to divert his water outside of the mutual irrigation company's system to protect against injury to other shareholders, provided the bylaw and the restrictions are not arbitrary. Fort Lyons Canal Co. v. Catlin Canal Co., supra. In recognition of the power of a shareholder to divert his water from a place other than the main headgatEl of the Company, the Company has adopted restrictive Bylaws. Section 6 of Article VI of the Company's Bylaws provides that water represented by shares of stock cannot be diverted outside of the Company's system, i.e., it must be diverted at the main diversion facility on the Colorado River, except as is provided in Section 7. Section 7 provides that in the event extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the diversion and carrying of water outside of the Company's canals, and provided that no injury shall result to other shareholders, the shareholder may request such diversion by petition to the Board of Directors pursuant to procedures set forth in Section 7. We conclude that Bylaw Sections 6 and 7 of 22