OCR Text |
Show EFFICIENCY OF PRACTICES 647 In a 1952 Colorado case in which the right of certain appropriators to construct a channel in the streambed for the purpose of conducting the water to their headgate was in issue, the supreme court held that their right to divert and use water from the stream at that headgate "included the right to make and change the necessary dams, channels or other diversion works within the stream bed which might be necessary to enable them to continue the diversion of water at their headgate, provided no additional burden were made upon defendants' lands thereby."273 Also, appropriators have the right to repair and improve their physical works in order to divert their full decreed supply of water. As against junior appropriators, this is not an enlarged use of the water appropriated.274 With Particular Respect to Conveyance and Distribution of Water A long established rule is that in conveying water to the place of use, the appropriator is required to keep his flumes and ditches in good repair in order to prevent unnecessary waste.275 It is recognized that always and inevitably there is a difference between the quantity of water diverted from the stream and the quantity that reaches the place of use through open ditches and flumes. Hence, some loss by absorption and evaporation takes place even in conduits well constructed and maintained. "So much of the water as may be unavoidably wasted is to be deemed a part of that which is appropriated" to beneficial use.276 So a reasonable conveyance loss is allowable, the "reasonableness" in a particular case depending upon the circumstances thereof.277 But when the inevitable loss "becomes extreme by reason of the porous character of the soil, and water is scarce, it becomes necessary for an irrigator to take reasonable means to lessen the amount of loss."278 In a California case, 273Downingv. Copeland, 126 Colo. 373, 375-376, 249 Pac. (2d) 539 (1952). "4Flasche v. Westcolo Co., 112 Colo. 387, 393, 149 Pac. (2d) 817 (1944). "The rule of law that gives junior appropriators a vested right to a continuance of conditions on the stream does not include the right to a continuance of the senior appropriators' misfortunes with their ditch." 7n*Barrowsv. Fox, 98 Cal. 63, 66-67, 32 Pac. 811 (1893). 276Thayerv. California Development Co., 164 Cal. 117,137,128 Pac. 21 (1912). "''Clark v. Hansen, 35 Idaho 449,456, 206 Pac. 808 (1922); Almo Water Co. v. Jones, 39 Fed. (2d) 37, 38 (9th Cir. 1930); although farmers could not reasonably have been ex- pected to build a cement ditch at a cost of $100,000, they have been reasonably expected to prevent the water from spreading out at several places and thus causing considerable waste: Basingerv. Taylor, 36 Idaho 591, 597, 211 Pac. 1085 (1922); In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 622, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915); the law contemplates an economical use of water and will not countenance a loss many times the deliverable quantity resulting from the condition of the conveyance appliances: Sterling v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421,429-430, 94 Pac. 339 (1908). 2™Shotwellv. Dodge, 8 Wash. 337, 341, 36 Pac. 254 (1894). |