Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130727
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:01:10+00:00

Document:
558 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT In a case concerning the relative status of commercial company and consumer, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that the water user was in fact the actual appropriator, even though the water was supplied through the agency of the company. The question as to whether the company had a property interest in the right to furnish the water was not an issue.s9° Seven years later, the Federal court for the District of Nevada expressed its disbelief that the water right of a commercial water company in Nevada rested exclusively in the customer, and held squarely that the reasonable value of the water right, insofar as it was used and useful in supplying the company's customers, was a part of the total value on which the company was entitled to a fair return.591 These cases are noted elsewhere in this chapter in connection with appurtenance of water right to land under "Property Characteristics," and in more detail later under "The Real Appropriator-Commercial enterprise." Formal Title to the Appropnative Right It has been long settled that a public service corporation may make an appropriation of water for distribution to the public generally, and may hold formal title to the appropriative right.592 This is the case regardless of the question of actual legal ownership of the appropriative right, discussed below. Whether this real ownership is held to be vested in the consumers, or in the organization company, the company may serve the users through its facilities and represent them in protecting their water rights.593 Mutual water companies and public agencies, likewise, to the extent of their fundamental authority, may appropriate water or acquire existing appropria- tive rights and hold formal title thereto. S90Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 158-162, 166-167, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914). S91Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 300 Fed. 645, 647-652 (D. Nev. 1921). The court emphasized that no valuation should be allowed for the right to water that was being wasted. S92Pima Farms Co. v. Proctor, 30 Ariz. 96, 112-113, 245 Pac. 369 (1926); Happy Valley Land & Water Co. v. Nelson, 169 Cal. 694, 695-696, 147 Pac. 966 (1915); Combs v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Res. Co., 38 Colo. 420, 429-432, 88 Pac. 396 (1907); Farmers' Co-op Ditch Co. v. Riverside In. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 457-459, 94 Pac. 761 . (1908); Bailey v. Tintinger, 45 Mont. 154, 177-178, 122 Pac. 575 (1912); Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 158-162, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914); Reno Power, Light & WaterCo. v.PublicServ. Comm'n, 300 Fed. 645,648-650 (D. Nev. 1921); Albuquerque Land & Jrr. Co. v. Gutierrez, 10 N. Mex. 177, 240-241, 61 Pac. 357 (1900), affirmed, 188 U.S. 545, 555-556 (1903); Biggs v. Miller, 147 S. W. 632, 637-638 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912); State v. Laramie Rivers Co., 59 Wyo. 9, 41-46, 136 Pac. (2d) 487 (1943). S93Montezuma Canal Co. v. Smithville Canal Co., 218 U. S. 371, 382 (1910); Salt River Valley Water Users' Assn. v. Norviel, 29 Ariz. 360, 374, 375, 241 Pac. 503 (1925); Combs v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Res. Co., 38 Colo. 420, 429-432, 88 Pac. 396 (1907); Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Barclay, 56 Idaho 13, 18-19, 47 Pac. (2d) 916 (1935); Biggs v. Miller, 147 S. W. 632, 637-638 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.