Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130411
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:20:15+00:00

Document:
242 APPROPRIATION OF WATER Several statutes refer to a "public or private" corporation.87 Nevada requires the corporation to be authorized to do business in the State.88 Sections of the Oregon statutes relate variously to appropriations made by public utility water companies and by railway corporations.89 The Nevada appropriation statute recognizes appropriations of water by commercial companies for transmission to lands of persons for compensation.90 Many decisions have been rendered by the California Supreme Court relating to State regulation of the rates and services of public utility water corporations.91 In most Western States, statutes relating to the organizational affairs of corporations are separate from those relating to appropriation of water. In Texas, however, all statutes authorizing appropriation of water, from the first enactment to the present, likewise authorized and still authorize the formation of corporations for the purpose of supplying water to lands along their canals. The later statutes provide for public regulation of rates charged to consumers. Many of these essentially public-service corporations have been succeeded by irrigation, water improvement, water control and improvement, and other public water districts.92 The Oregon Supreme Court had occasion to observe that appropriation of water by a corporation follows the same general rule respecting priority of the right as though made by an individual.93 The first case decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court with respect to appropriative water rights involved a controversy between an individual claimant and a corporation of the type commonly known in the West as a mutual irrigation corporation, or cooperative irrigation company. In its corporate capacity, this organization made and de- fended an appropriation of water for the use of its farmer-shareholders.94 (2) Other private group organizations. The majority of western statutes include "association" in their statements of appropriative qualifications. This of course may comprise any number of associates from two or more. The Washington statute includes a water users' association, which was the type of 87 N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-5-1 (1968); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-5-10 (1967); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7492 (1954). 88Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.325 (Supp. 1967). 89Oreg. Rev. Stat. § § 541.010 and 537.310 (Supp. 1969). 90Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.040 (Supp. 1967). This is in the form of one of the provisos inserted in this section providing for appurtenance of all water to the place of beneficial use. See Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 158-162, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914); Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Service Commission, 300 Fed. 645, 648-650 (D. Nev. 1921). 91Cal. Railroad Comm., "Public Utility Regulation by the California Railroad Com- mission" (1927), brings together all supreme court decisions dealing with the jurisdiction and work of the Railroad Commission, now the Public Utilities Commission, to 1927. Of a total of 109 decisions thus reported, 39 were water cases. "Hutchins, Wells A., "The Texas Law of Water Rights," pp. 266-283 (1961). 93In re Hood River, 114 Oreg. 112, 131, 181, 227 Pac. 1065(1924). "Gates v. Settlers'Mill., Canal & Res. Co., 19 Okla. 83, 85-87, 91 Pac. 856 (1907).

References: § 75
 § 46
 art. 7492
 § 533
 § 541
 § 533
 v. 
 v. 
 v.