Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130737
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:36:40+00:00

Document:
568 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT But if the right vests in the consumer by reason of his application of the water to beneficial use, then it may be necessary to discriminate between the consumer-appropriators by giving preference to those whose priorities are earliest in time.636 In Arizona, a canal company has the duty to distribute the water to which its consumers are entitled in the order of priorities and upon equal terms.637 These individual water user priorities control whether the organization is a public service irrigation company638 or a mutual irrigation company.639 Mutual irrigation company.-(1) In most Western States, the privilege of obtaining water from a standard incorporated mutual company is derived from the holding of shares of its capital stock. Exceptional circumstances in Arizona are mentioned below. A mutual company that has an appropriative right covering its entire service area may limit itself by its own articles of incorporation and policies to an inflexible basis of apportionment of water, such as only one share of stock to the acre. Or it may authorize the holding of any number of shares per acre. Consumers pay for the service through the media of capital stock assessments, or toll charges for quantities of water delivered, or both. (2) The rule in Arizona is that one who has a valid right by virtue of appropriation to the use of water served through a canal system owned and operated by a company does not need to own shares of stock in the company in order to be entitled to the delivery of water therefrom640-unless, of course, in a situation comparable to that on the Salt River Valley Project, as stated immediately below. "Such companies have duties similar to that of common carriers, and must carry the water which they do not, and can never, own, to the person who has the right to use it by virtue of an appropriation under the laws of the state, upon the payment of proper carriage charges, regardless of the ownership of stock in the corporation."641 As stated earlier under "The Real Appropriator-Mutual enterprise," the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association is held to be "a carrier of water for its shareholders," such shares being made appurtenant to the land of each member. Thus, all landowners who did not hold preexisting appropriative rights acquired, by virtue of purchase of stock in the association, the right to 636Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 37 Nev. 154, 166, 140 Pac. 720, 144 Pac. 744 (1914). ™Olsen v. Union Canal & In. Co., 58 Ariz. 306, 317, 119 Pac. (2d) 569 (1941). 638 Gould v. Maricopa Canal Co., 8 Ariz. 429, 447, 76 Pac. 598 (1904). 639Hargrove v. Hall, 3 Ariz. 252, 253-255, 73 Pac. 400 (1891). 640Olsen v. Union Canal & In. Co., 58 Ariz. 306, 317-318, 119 Pac. (2d) 569 (1941). In this case, the company attempted to compel those who held less shares of stock than acres of land to pay sums in addition to their proportionate share of the operating expenses, or get no water. The court held that all water users were entitled to the delivery of water in order of priority of appropriation, and upon equal terms. 641 Whiting v. Lyman Water Co., 59 Ariz. 121, 123-124, 458, 459, 124 Pac. (2d) 316, 129 Pac. (2d) 995 (1942).

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