THB COMMON LAW OF* IRRIGATION. 475 



right to its use is not a mere incident to the soil, but 

 rises to the dignity of a distindl usufrudluary estate. 



Coffin vs. Left Hand Ditch Co., Supra. 



Rominger w. Squires, 9 Col. 329 



It may safely be said that in all the States and 

 Territories, where, as in Colorado, these rights are of 

 peculiar and paramount importance, they are treated 

 as realty. The Colorado I^egislature in 1893 (L. 93 p. 

 293) enadled that thereafter all conveyances of such 

 rights should be by deed with usual formalities; but in 

 ordinary cases such was probably the law before the 

 enacflment. 



The right when vested may in some cases be ap- 

 purtenant to the soil upon which it is used, but gener- 

 ally it is separate and distindl from the ownership of 

 the land, and a conveyance of the latter would not 

 carry the water right, unless mentioned in the deed ; 

 the right, though it can only be acquired by appropria- 

 tion and use, may, when acquired, be sold, transferred 

 to and used upon other lands. 



Fuller vs. Swan River P. M. Co., 12 Col. 17 



The place of use as well as the point of diversion 

 may be changed, when such change works no injury 

 to others. 



Fuller vs. Swan River P. M. Co., Supra 



