Imperial Water Co. No. 5 v. Holabird
Citations
- 197 F. 4
- 116 C.C.A. 526
- 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1264
Syllabus
<p>1. Waters and Water Courses (§ 240*) — Irrigation Companies — Appropriation oe Water — Water Rights.</p> <p>Under Const. Cal. art. 14, § 1, which declares that the use of all water appropriated for sále, rental, or distribution is a public use and subject to state regulation and control, and the statutes enacted pursuant thereto, Civ. Code Cal. § 1410 et seq., which require the appropriator of water to designate the place of use and to at once commence and continue the construction of works to apply it to such use, an irrigation company by appropriating water for use on public lands, then unoccupied, and in advance of the actual construction of works, does not acquire the water right appurtenant to such lands so as to be enabled to charge subsequent settlers for such naked right in addition to rates for the water furnished.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. § 240.*]</p> <p>2. Waters and Water Courses (§ 232*) — Irrigation Companies — Contracts —Validity.</p> <p>Complainant, a state corporation, made an appropriation of the greater part of the water of the Colorado river for the irrigation of lands in Mexico and the Imperial Valley in California, which were then public lands owned by-the United States and the state. The lands were desert lands, and there was no other source from which they could be irrigated. Complainant's canal commenced in California, extended into Mexico, and back across the boundary. It organized a company in Mexico to have charge of that part of its works, of which it owned all of the stock. It also later organized subordinate mutual companies, each of which was to furnish water for the irrigation of certain designated lands in the valley to its stoekholdeis who were required to he owners of such lands and to purchase one share of stock for each acre to be irrigated. They were also required to pay rates for the water which was to be supplied by the Mexican Company. Held, that a contract between compl
Judges: Gilbert, Morrow, Ross
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.