The Glenwood post., 1907-07-13
IRRIGATION
DECISION
Supreme Court Takes Peculiar View of
Irrigation Rights
THREE OF THE MEMBERS DISSENT

Irrigation interests in all parts of
the state will be affected by the re-
cent decision of the Supreme court in
the case of the Seven Lakes Reservoir
company, appellant, VS.. the New Love
land 4 Greeley Irrigation & Land com
pany, appellee. The reservoir company
won out and judgment of the lower
court was reversed. The opinion was
written by Justice Gabbert, the de-
cision being en- banc, with Justices
Steele, Campbell and Caswell dis
senting.
A great deal of comment is heard
concerning the affect of the opinion,
and those interested in bitches for di-
rect irrigation profess to find con
fict with existing decision of the
court in the enlarged authority grant
ed reservoirs in impounding water.
The following paragraph is found in
the statutes of 1901:
''The owner or possessors of reser-
voirs shall not have the right to i'm
pound any water whatever in such
reservoir during the time that such
water is required in bitches for direct
irrigation or for reservoirs holding
senior rights"
On the other hand, many interested
persons take the view that more lib
eral construction of existing laws will
do much to encourage the building of
reservoirs in all parts of the state and
will result in a more beneficial - and
continued use Of the waters of Colo
RADIO streams.
Decision Shows New
Advantages in State
Following is the complete text of the
opinion:
''The Seven Lakes Reservoir com
pany, appellant, VS., the New Loveland
& Greeley Irrigation & Land company,
appellee. Appeal from the district
court of Boulder county.
''The question presented by this ap-
peal is the right of the owner of a
priority for direct irrigation to store
the water thereby represented for use
later in the season. Appellant is a
corporation organized under the laws
of this state, for the purpose of acquir-
storage of water to supplement the
water supply of its stockholders OBJ
tanned through the Loveland and Gree
ley ditch to irrigate lands belonging
to them under this ditch. Pursuant to
this purpose it acquired reservoir sites
and purchased "a shares of the Lou
den Irrigation Canal company and 80
inches in the Barnes ditch The pri-
critics belonging to these bitches were
awarded for direct irrigation purposes
The water represented by these pur'
chascs it did not apply to lands di'
rectiy, but during the irriigating sea
son stored in one or more of its reser'
vOirs for use upon lands later, to ma
ture crops, like beets and potatoes,
which it is not necessary to irrigate in
the early part of the season, but which
do require water about August, and
later, when the direct supply belong
ing to its stockholders in the Loveland
and Greeley ditch was insufficient for
this purpose. The several bitches
named derive their respective supply
from the same general source. Ap-
pelee, the owner of priorities supplied
from this same source, brought a suit
against appellant the object of which
was to prevent the appellant from di-
verting the water represented by its
purchases during the irrigation season
for storage. To the complaint filed the
appellant filed cross complaint, claim
ing the right to divert the water repre-
sented by its purchases for storage
purposes, based substantially upon the
grounds above stated. There was nc
dispute with respect to the dates and
amounts of the respective priorities OF
the parties to the action involved in
this appeal, it being the contention or
the part of plaintiff that, although the
defendant was entitled to divert the
water represented by its purchases fo'
the purpose of direct irrigation when
needed, and that these priorities fol
this purpose were superior to any
claimed by plaintiff, that the defen
dant could not abandon the use Of the
rights purchased by it for direct irri