| Show irrigation CANAL RIGHTS william ogden writes from richfield utah to the NEWS as an follone ol fol lowe will you kindly answer the following questions through your valuable paper as they are becoming of great interest to irrigation companies and others in this section of the country I 1 where an irrigation company has constructed a canal and maintained the same before any ol of the land adjoining it was hied filed upon or purchased from the government can it lawfully claim a right of way along the banks of the canal of say one rod wide for operating purposes 2 where parties have constructed fences along the banks of the canal and are thereby preventing the irrigation company from having free access to the canal can the owners of such fences be compelled to remove the same the amount of land to which SD an irrigation company has bas a right or 01 use uee in the operation of its canal depends upon circumstances so that a claim to a rod in width or any other space ou each side bide of a canal could not be fixed for a uniform rule the company right of way over land amounts bats to a no D easement lor canal purposes es on 9 so 0 much of the land as may oe necessary for the operation of the canal the area 0 of land so eo used would not be the same in a city or town and to in a place distant from such city neither delther would it be the tame ame on a hillside and on OD level ground or in a out cut and at an embankment baa ban kment in the case cited the owner of the laud would have the use of the same for ady purpose except that which interferes with the operation of we the canal for instance he might de sire to plant trees along the ditch and would have hare a perfect right to do so BO if such planting did not cot affect the canal or its operation but it if it interferes in any way with the canal or its opera tion lion he la IS not permitted to plant the rees reee both parties have joint use of the land over which the canal oom dow pany has haa the right of eai ea ement lement neither can exclude the other from a use ue which does doea not interfere with the other in some cases the canal company might need more than a rod aad in other cases would not require any land the courts would allow just what was necessary necee eary As AB to the second beoo nd question it Is answered in what lias has been said except that there may be the further explanation that in acquiring the right to use land for canal purposes the irrigation compsy company also aleo acquires the right of access to such land the owner of a tract of land cannot shut out the canal company from its ditch or from any land we the use of w which blob is necessary nece esary to the be operation of such each ditch and a fence designed to do so is unlawful the property owner may fence his land but he must do so in a way to allow the be irrigation company access to its canal tor lor all purposes purposed nece necessary seary to maintaining the some same but a canal company could not say that because it needed the use of five rods of land irid at a given point me owner must leave that space open to be overrun with animals he may put up such euch fence gates etc as will not ln in with the canal companas comp anys operations but no more both parties have equal rights on one to the easement over the land for th the canal and its operation and the he other fur for all purposes which do not interfere with the first named but has a paramount interest which will ex chide the other there to is ft a joint and iri irie odly endly use of the land over which both interests extend the quantity or land so affected to is uniformly deter mined by tibe courts to be such as Is I 1 necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the canal or water way |
