Every person or company owning or controlling any canal or ditch used for the purposes of irrigation and carrying water for pay, when demanded by the users from April 1 until November 1 in each year, shall keep a flow of water therein, so far as may be reasonably practicable for the purpose of irrigation, sufficient to meet the requirements of all such persons as are properly entitled to the use of water therefrom, to the extent, if necessary, to which such person may be entitled to water and no more. Whenever the rivers or public streams or sources from which the water is obtained are not sufficiently free from ice, or the volume of water therein is too low and inadequate for that purpose, then such canal or ditch shall be kept with as full a flow of water therein as may be practicable, subject, however, to the rights of priorities from the streams or other sources, as provided by law, and the necessity of cleaning, repairing, and maintaining the same in good condition.
Source: L. 1887: p. 304, § 1. L. 1893: p. 299, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3254. C.L. § 1733. CSA: C. 90, § 131. CRS 53: § 147-7-19. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-7-18.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Revision of Water and Irrigation Statutes", see 31 Dicta 29 (1954).
This section provides at what time water shall be kept flowing in ditches. White v. Farmers' Highline Canal & Reservoir Co., 22 Colo. 191, 43 P. 1028 (1896).
This section provides that the distribution of water for irrigation shall be under the control of the ditch company, acting through a superintendent, whose duties are prescribed. White v. Farmers' Highline Canal & Reservoir Co., 22 Colo. 191, 43 P. 1028 (1896).
This section does not authorize a company to arbitrarily refuse to deliver water at all. Downey v. Twin Lakes Land & Water Co., 41 Colo. 385, 92 P. 946 (1907).
A provision in a water right contract between a ditch company and a consumer, to the effect that if the company should at any time refuse to furnish the water, the consumer might take it himself, is void. White v. Farmers' Highline Canal & Reservoir Co., 22 Colo. 191, 43 P. 1028 (1896).
This and the following sections do not affect the right of plaintiff to receive whatever water he may justly be entitled to under his contract but where, as here, there is a controversy as to the amount of such water available for his use, he must bring his action to determine such right, and in no event can he be allowed to ignore the company's superintendent and its reasonable regulations, and in violation of the act enlarge the outlet to his lateral ditch and take water from the company's ditch at will. White v. Farmers' Highline Canal & Reservoir Co., 22 Colo. 191, 43 P. 1028 (1896).