Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><~ <br /> <br />01 <br />C} <br /> <br />r=.. <br /> <br />C::-l <br /> <br />C:~, Article VI do not violate the principles set forth in Fort Lyons <br /> <br />Canal Co. v. Catlin Canal Co., supra. <br /> <br />We doubt whether the right of a shareholder in a mutual <br /> <br />irrigation company to divert his water out:side the mutual <br /> <br />irrigation company's canals would have a significant effect upon <br /> <br />salinity control. <br /> <br />The basis for this observation is the <br /> <br />requirement that such a diversion not injure other shareholders. <br /> <br />Such an injury would most likely occur in the event a significant <br /> <br />quantity of water was taken out of the Company's system, such as <br /> <br />to lower meaningfully the level of water in the main canals <br /> <br />operated by the Company. If the levels were to be lowered, then <br /> <br />injury would most likely result to shareholders and thereby <br /> <br />preclude the out-of-system diversion. <br /> <br />If the levels were not <br /> <br />lowered, then other shareholders would not be injured and thereby <br /> <br />not preclude the out-of-system diversion. In the latter case, it <br /> <br />is doubtful that the quantity of water taken out of the system <br /> <br />would be significant enough to interfere with the overall <br /> <br />effectiveness of salinity control. <br /> <br />It is our conclusion that although shareholders in the <br /> <br />Company have the power to divert their shares outside of the <br /> <br />Company's canal system, it is unlikely that this would or could <br /> <br />result in a significant impairment of salinity control measures <br /> <br />contemplated for the Company's laterals. <br /> <br />23 <br />