THE COMMON LAW OF IRRIGATION. 483 



stream percolates into the same, is held to be but indi- 

 redlly appropriating water from the stream. 



McClellan vs. Hurdle, 33 Pac. Rep. Col. App. 



And so if a source or supply of a natural stream 

 were a lake, to take water from the lake would be an 

 infringement of the rights of prior appropriators from 

 the stream. Any body of water in whatever form, 

 originating from natural causes, and supplying and 

 having an outlet through a stream with well-defined 

 channel, is a part of a "natural stream," and the 

 waters are subjedl to appropriation in the same manner. 



Carrier's Diversion. — Canals or common carriers 

 are permitted to divert water from streams, to be appro- 

 priated by their patrons, and many thousand of acres 

 of valuable lands are irrigated and made produdtive by 

 this means, where otherwise it would be impracticable. 

 In such case the right of use is in the consumer. The 

 canal company is in one sense a quasi public servant, 

 and is entitled to reasonable compensation for the car- 

 riage. When a canal is commenced and completed 

 within * ' reasonable time, ' ' the consumers who there- 

 after, within " a reasonable time," appropriate waters 

 therefrom to beneficial use, have priorities dating from 

 the carrier's diversion. 



Ditch Rights. — The right of way for ditches is 

 easily and oftentimes confused with water rights — the 

 former is no more or less than a right of way or ease- 

 ment through lands, but in some cases as evidence of 

 appropriation, furnish the measure of the water right. 

 The Colorado Statutes provide for a record of ditch 

 statements and the I^egislatures have gone so far as to 



