OCR Text |
Show WHO MAY APPROPRIATE WATER 241 grew into towns and districts and eventually in most cases into incorporated or unincorporated mutual irrigation companies. (See the State summary for Utah in the appendix.) Gold miners and their adversaries, whose controversies gave rise to the California system of appropriative water rights, comprised not only many individuals but also a considerable number of water and mining companies. In fact, in 15 of the 41 earliest reported water rights cases decided by the California Supreme Court (from 1853 to 1863, inclusive) companies were named as principal parties. Thus, the California Supreme Court in many decisions had recognized organizations as adversary appropriators long before the California legislature enacted the first western statute providing a procedure for appropriating water, and designating therein only "persons" as appropriators.83 On the other hand, early procedural statutes of several jurisdictions, inspired by the California Civil Code, related specifically to both persons and organizations.84 In Oregon, the first detailed procedure applied to corporations only, although other sections of the act recognized the existence of appropriations by individuals and provided for their adjudication.85 Typical of litigation over water rights in relation to irrigation organizations are two early Colorado decisions-the earlier one pertaining to a company that carried water for hire, the later to a mutual irrigation company.86 These early procedures were not exclusive. One could appropriate water validly without complying with their requirements. But compliance with the statutory provisions was important in affording the benefit of the doctrine of relation, which was not accorded to those who failed to comply. The author is not aware of any high court decision in the West to the effect that an early statutory procedure was not applicable to an intended appropriation by a natural person or an organization for the sole reason that the status of the claimant was not expressly listed in the act. And in the absence of statutes, appropriations of water were widely recognized by the courts regardless of the individual or group characteristics of intending appropriators. Questions over formal title to appropriations of water that arose in connection with diversions for the use of other parties did not necessarily concern the diverter's qualifications to appropriate water for his or its own use. Appropriations under current statutes.-(I) Corporation. A majority of existing water rights statutes list corporations as potential appropriators. 83Cal Civ. Code § § 1410-1422 (1872). 84For example, person or corporation: Idaho Laws 1881, p. 267. Person, company, or corporation: Nebr. Laws 1889, ch. 68. Person, persons, or association: Wash. Laws 1891, ch. 142. 8SOreg. Laws 1891, p. 52. 86 Wheeler v. Northern Colorado In. Co., 10 Colo. 582, 17 Pac. 487 (1888); Combs v. Agricultural Ditch Co., 17 Colo. 146, 28 Pac. 966 (1892). 450-486 O - 72 - 18 |