| OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 559 The Real Appfopriator Commercial enterprise.-The western decisions on this matter conflict. This topic is associated with that entitled "Methods of Appropriating Water of Watercourses-Completion of Appropriation-What Constitutes Completion of an Appropriation" in chapter 7. (1) Ownership of water right by company, (a) In California, where public regulation of water utilities became increasingly prominent early in this century, an important case was decided by the United States Supreme Court with respect to water rates fixed by boards of county supervisors, shortly before the changeover to State regulatory control became effective. The chief issue was inclusion in the rate base of valuation of the company's water rights. In holding that this valuation should be taken into account, the Court was obviously convinced that the water rights had been acquired, paid for, and confirmed by prescription against riparian owners and that they belonged to the company.594 (b) A number of other courts have held or declared that the appropriative water rights exercised by commercial irrigation companies belong to the company, not to the consumers.595 (c) In a statutory adjudication suit, the Oregon Supreme Court held squarely that a corporation organized for profit for the purpose of supplying water to all persons whose lands are within reach of its ditch for general rental, by contrast with a mutual corporation organized for the purpose of carrying the water appropriated by its mutual stockholders, became the owner of the use of water appropriated.596 In so doing, the court took occasion to remove S9ASan Joaquin & Kings River Canal & In. Co. v. County of Stanislaus, 233 U. S. 454, 459-461 (1914)., S95The appropriation of water carried in a ditch operated for sale, rental, or distribution of water belongs to the water company, not to the water user. The right of the latter is only that of a user and consumer: Nampa & Meridian In. Dist. v. Barclay, 56 Idaho 13, 18-19, 47 Pac. (2d) 916 (1935); Farmers Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside In. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 457-459, 94 Pac. 761 (1908). The appropriation of "a public service corporation * * * is complete when it has fully complied with the statute and has its distributing system completed and is ready and willing to deliver water to users upon demand, and offers to do so." Bailey v. Tintinger, 45 Mont. 154, 177-178, 122 Pac. 575 (1912). To the same effect with respect to the statutes of 1881 and 1899, subject to loss of the right by failure to apply the water to a beneficial use within a reasonable time: Basinger v. Taylor, 30 Idaho 289, 299, 164 Pac. 522 (1917). Also to the same effect, with respect to the 18*81 South Dakota water appropriation law, the water rights being held to have vested in the original locators at the time that they were acquired, and not in those who used the water: Butte County v. Lovinger, 64 S. Dak. 200, 209, 266 N. W. 127 (1936). Irrigation company held to be the appropriator, and parties with whom it had contracted for water service were customers of an appropriator: Willis v. Neches Canal Co., 16 S. W. (2d) 266, 268-269 (Tex. Com. App. 1929). See Biggs v. Miller, 147 S. W. 632, 637-638 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912). S96In re Walla Walla River, 141 Oreg. 492, 496-499, 16 Pac. (2d) 939 (1932). Some dissatisfied customers of the public service corporation who discontinued their |
