Colorado § 37-84-119 - Ditches to be kept in repair.

§ 37-84-119. Ditches to be kept in repair.

The owners, or persons in control, of any canal or ditch used for irrigating purposes shall maintain the same in good order and repair, ready to receive water by April 1 in each year, so far as can be accomplished by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, and shall construct the necessary outlets in the banks of the canal or ditch for a proper delivery of the water to persons having paid-up shares or who have rights to the use of water. A multiplicity of outlets in the canal or ditch shall at all times be avoided, so far as the same shall be reasonably practicable, and the location of the same shall be under the control of and shall be at the most convenient and practicable points consistent with the protection and safety of the ditch for the distribution of water among the various claimants thereof; and such location shall be under the control of a superintendent.

Source: L. 1887: p. 305, § 2. R.S. 08: § 3255. C.L. § 1734. CSA: C. 90, § 132. CRS 53: § 147-7-20. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-7-19.

Cross references: For requirement of keeping ditch in repair, see § 7-42-108.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Revision of Water and Irrigation Statutes", see 31 Dicta 29 (1954).

Under this section it is the duty of the ditch company to furnish headgates for those having a right to use the water. Downey v. Twin Lakes Land & Water Co. 41 Colo. 385,92 P. 946 (1907).

Where a person acquired a half of an 80-acre water right, and his land was lying nearer the headgate of the main canal than any of the land which had theretofore been irrigated with water obtained upon this right and could not be irrigated by water taken from the main canal through any existing headgate, it was held, that he was entitled to a headgate over the objection that a multiplicity of headgates weakened the canal and increased the expense of maintaining it. Downey v. Twin Lakes Land & Water Co., 41 Colo. 385, 92 P. 946 (1907).

Where it is practicable for two or more consumers to draw water from a canal for the irrigation of their lands through one headgate, that may be done, but where a water consumer cannot thus obtain water, he is entitled, under this section, to compel a water company to construct a necessary headgate at the expense of the water consumer. Downey v. Twin Lakes Land & Water Co., 41 Colo. 385, 92 P. 946 (1907).