OCR Text |
Show RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR WATER CONTROL AND RELATED PURPOSES 279 of one or more residents or freeholders of any road district under the procedure applying to public roads, except that only one petitioner is necessary. The person for whose benefit the private way is required must pay the damages awarded to landowners and must keep the canal in repair.288 North Dakota grants the right-of-way to appropriators of water, including the right to enlarge existing structures and use them in common with the former owner.289 In Idaho, the right to cross another ditch as well as other land is granted.290 Invocation of the doctrine of relation under the Washington statute is not impaired by the amount of time taken to condemn necessary sites for water control structures, inasmuch as such condemnation proceedings are as essential to the enterprise as is the actual construction of the physical works.291 Certain conditions are imposed in some statutes. Thus in Arizona, only "An owner of arable and irrigable lands" may exercise this right of condemna- tion.292 Under the Texas procedure, persons or associations who seek to exercise this power must first make application to the Texas Water Rights Commission which, if it deems the proposal advisable, may institute condemna- tion proceedings in the name of the State for use of the individual concerned.293 Measures to protect the servient estates are declared. Thus: No landowner need grant a right-of-way across his land for irrigation works if there are already in operation across such property works sufficient for furnishing enough water for the dominant estate.294 The shortest and most direct route must be followed, and no tract of improved or occupied land may be burdened unnecessarily by more than one ditch without the owner's consent.295 There must be the least damage to private or public property, consistent with proper and economical engineering construction.296 The practical use of any right-of- way or public or private road is not to be impaired, nor must public or private property be injured.297 288Cal. Water Code §§ 7020-7026 (West 1956). Apparently these sections have not been directly construed by the appellate courts of California. Comparable legislation providing for acquisition of rights-of-way for private roads was upheld by the California Supreme Court in the early case of Los Angeles County v. Reyes, 3 Cal. U. 775, 777-778, 32 Pac. 233 (1893). 289 N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-04 (1960). 290 Idaho Code Ann. § § 42-1102 to-1108 (1948). 291 Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.040 (Supp. 1961). Grant Realty Co. v. Ham, Yearsley & Ryrie, 96 Wash. 616, 624-626, 165 Pac. 495 (1917). 292 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-201 (1956). 293Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7583 (1954). 294Kans. Stat. Ann. § 42-316 (1964). 295Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § §148-3-4 and 148-3-5 (Supp. 1969). 296N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-1-3 (1968); N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-01-04 (1960); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § 2 (1970); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-8-1 (1967). 297 Utah Code Ann. § 73-1-6 (1968). |