Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130726
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:59:32+00:00

Document:
ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 557 the actual cost of their acquisition even if, as a matter of law, they belonged to the companies.584 Acceptance of a permit or license to appropriate water in California carries an express statutory condition that no value therefor, in excess of the actual amount paid to the State, shall ever be claimed with respect to, among other things, public regulation of services to be rendered by the appropriator.585 The Arizona and Oregon water rights statutes contain provisions to the same effect.586 The Colorado Supreme Court from early times emphasized the collaborative relationship of commercial companies and their water consumers, the company being the trustee and representative for protection of their rights. In 1938, in the review of a ratemaking proceeding, this court concluded that neither the whole nor any part of the value of project water rights should be included in the rate base. Particular emphasis was laid on the fact that the company's decreed appropriations were of necessity dependent upon the joint acts of company and water users, neither of which could be considered the appropriator in the strict sense of that term.587 In a case arising in California shortly before the State commission procedure was established, the United States Supreme Court held that a public service company was entitled to have the value of its water rights taken into account by boards of county supervisors in fixing the rates to be charged by the company. But the Court did not decide the principle on which the valuation should be measured.588 The Idaho Supreme Court, which has adhered to the view that an appropriation of water for sale, rental, or distribution belongs to the water company, stated that such an appropriator has a valuable property right entitled to protection. The court held that the State Public Utilities Commission was in error in refusing to include in the rate base of a public-service enterprise the value of its water right other than the actual cost of acquiring this right.s89 S8^Hutchins, Wells A., "Commercial Irrigation Companies," U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bui. 177, pp. 30-31 (1930); Hutchins, Wells A., Selby, H. E., and Voelker, Stanley WM "Irrigation-Enterprise Organizations," U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 934, pp. 72-73 (1953). 58SCaL Water Code § § 1392 and 1629 (West 1956). 586 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-149(B) (1956); Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 537.280 (Supp. 1969). 581'Jefferson County v. Rocky Mountain Water Co., 102 Colo. 351, 355-361, 363, 79 Pac. (2d)373 (1938). 588San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & In. Co. v. County of Stanislaus, 233 U. S. 454, 459-461 (1914), reversing, 191 Fed. 875 (N. D. Cal. 1911). The lower court had held that the water right was the property of the consumer and attached to his land, and not to that of the company attached to its canal system; hence, the company was not entitled to have it valued as its property right in this case. 589Murray v. Public Utilities Commission, 27 Idaho 603, 619-620, 150 Pac. 47 (1915); Capital Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 44 Idaho 1, 16-20, 262 Pac. 863 (1926).

References: § 1392
 § 45
 § 537
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.