Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130768
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:51:23+00:00

Document:
DIVERSION, DISTRIBUTION, AND STORAGE WORKS 599 Many changes in the form of organization of water supply enterprises have taken place in the West. Control passed in some cases from pioneer towns to mutual companies. Elsewhere commercial companies were replaced by mutual companies or by irrigation districts. The mutual-type water users organizations formed on the early Federal reclamation projects were mostly converted to irrigation districts, a notable exception being the Salt River Valley Project, Arizona. One of the largest western irrigation projects, in Imperial Valley, California, was originally planned for a diversion of water from Colorado River by a commercial company and distribution to more than 500,000 acres of land through the systems of 14 mutual companies. The works of the development company were later acquired by Imperial Irrigation District, which eventually also acquired the systems of all mutual companies and has since operated the project as a single district unit. In recent years, large-scale district, water authority, and State water plans have come into prominence. Even interstate projects are now in various stages of planning and execution. The overall trend is toward larger and more integrated plans, with the probability of more comprehensive areawide and even regional projects for management of both surface streams and ground waters. Separable Ownerships of Waterworks and Water Right It was early recognized, as shown by the growing diversity in type of water supply organizations over the years, that the means of diversion might be owned by a single appropriator, or owned in common by a number of appro priators or water users, or such means might be owned by one person and the water appropriated by another-in short, that ownership of the means of diversion of water is not essential to perfect the right of appropriation.35 In chapter 8, under "Property Characteristics-Right of Property- Ownership of the Appropriative Right," it is shown that water rights and ditch rights are separate and distinct property rights; that one may own a water right without a ditch right, or vice versa; and that abandonment of one does not necessarily imply an abandonment of the other.36 And so the water right and the ditch right for conveyance of the water may each "be owned, held and conveyed independently of the other."37 Each of several water appropriators using a ditch in common may separately abandon his right thereto.38 The waterworks and water right are so separated in their property nature that they "are capable of several and distinct injuries, giving rise to separate 3SSlosser v. Salt River Valley Canal Co., 7 Ariz. 376, 389, 65 Pac. 332 (1901); Gould v. Maricopa Canal Co., 8 Ariz. 429, 447, 76 Pac. 598 (1904). 36Connolly v. Harrell, 102 Mont. 295, 300-301, 57 Pac. (2d) 781 (1936); McDonnell v. Huffine, 44 Mont. 411, 423,120 Pac. 792 (1912). 31Simonson v. Moon, 72 Idaho 39, 47, 237 Pac. (2d) 93 (1951); Marks v. Twohy Bros. Co., 98 Oreg. 514, 533, 534,194 Pac. 675 (1921). ^Brighton Ditch Co. v. Englewood, 124 Colo. 366, 373, 237 Pac. (2d) 116 (1951).

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