SalvagedWater - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 13, 2007 Page 2 not otherwise have been present. A person who a dds water to the system is entitled to a decree affirming the right to use it. Examples of developed water are transmountain diversions from one rive r basin to another; trapped water artificially produced through draining of a mine; and water trapped in impervious geologic formations. See Shelton Farms , 524 P.2d at 1324-25 (citing Ripley v. Park Center Land and Water Co. , 40 Colo. 129, 90 P. 75 (1907 )(mine water); Pike Peak v. Kuiper , 169 Colo. 309, 455 P.2d 882 (1969) (“saucepan-type” impervious sh ale formation)). Developed water is free from the river call, and is not junior to prior decrees. The Court in Shelton Farms noted, however, that “[s]trong ev idence is required to prove the addi tion of the water” to the stream system. 524 P.2d at 1324. Note that transmountain developed water is free from the river call in the basin that it has been exported to; it must be diverted in priority in the basin of origin. In contrast to developed water, “salvaged” water, of the sort at issue in Shelton Farms , is water “in the river or its tributaries (including the aquifer) which would ordinarily go to waste, but somehow [is] made available fo r beneficial use.” 529 P.2d at 1325. When salvaged waters are made available, they belong to the river system in general and are subject to call by appropriators in order of priority. The Court in Shelton Farms stressed the importance of Co lorado’s priority system of administering water rights, and held that the prio rity system could not be replaced by a “lack of injury doctrine.” Id. at 1325-26. The phreatophytes were “water thieves” that had grown up near the river in the time sin ce the first appropriations were made, and had long ago deprived senior water rights of their lawful entitlemen ts. Although the water was no longer available for use by senior water rights, the Court refused to allow those who removed the phreatophytes to claim it. Writing for the Court, Justice Day famous ly stated that “thirsty men cannot step into the shoes of a ‘water thief.’” Id. at 1325. The Shelton Farms Court announced the salvage rule “with reluctance,” being “loathe to stifle creativity in finding new water supplies.” 529 P.2d at 1326-27. The Court was equally concerned, however, with the unintended effects of creating a “super class of water rights never before in existence.” Id. The Court quoted Steve Reynolds, a former St ate Engineer of New Mexico, regarding the potential for such unintended effects: If one ignores the technical difficulty of determining the amount of water salvaged, this proposal [for a water right free of river call], at first blush, might seem reasonable and in the inte rest of the best use of water and related land resources. On closer scrutiny, it appear s that if the wa ter supply of prior existing rights is lost to encroaching phreatophyt es and then taken by individuals eradicating the plants, the result woul d be chaos. The doctrine of prior