WSPC12924 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e present and future, for irrigation, mining, manufacturing, and domestic purposes within said districts." C.R.S. S 37-47-107(1)(c) (2005). 37. The Applicant has exercised reasonable diligence in its efforts during this diligence period (August 1995-2001) to put its decreed conditional water rights to beneficial use in the manner required by Colorado law. To establish diligence, an applicant must show "the steady application of effort to complete the appropriation in a reasonably expedient and efficient manner under all the facts and circumstances. See C.R.S. ~ 37-92-301 (4)(b); Munici?al Subdistrict v. Oxv USA. Inc.. 990 P.2d 701 (Colo. 1999); Municipal Subdistrict v. Chevron Shale Oil Co., 986 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1999). The water court's determination of reasonable diligence is a case by case detennination, considering all the relevant evidence, and the following nonexclusive list of factors: 1) economic feasibility; 2) the status of required pennits and governmental approvals; 3) expenditures made to develop the appropriation; 4) the ongoing conduct of engineering and environmental studies; 5) the design and construction of facilities; and 6) the nature and extent ofland holdings and contracts demonstrating the water demand and beneficial uses which the conditional right is to serve when perfected. OXY USA, 990 P.2d at 706; Chevron Shale Oil, 986 P.2d at 921. In considering these factors, the Court will take into consideration, as relevant here, the size and complexity of the project and the intervention of outside delaying factors. OxvUSA. 990 P.2d at 706 (citation omitted). Work on one feature of the project may be sufficient to demonstrate diligence towards development of the entire project. Jd. An individual applicant's financial efforts may be considered as part of the diligence finding. Id. at 707. 38. The "can and will" test must be met by an applicant for a finding of reasonable diligence. Municipal Subdistrict. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. Getty Oil Exploration Co., 997 P.2d 557, 564 (Colo.2000); OXY USA. 990 P.2d 701, 707 (CoJo.1999). The legislative intent implied in C.R.S. ~ 37-92-305(9)(b), in diligence proceedings, is to require that the Applicant demonstrate: that the decreed conditional appropriation is being pursued in a manner which affirms that capture, possession, control, and beneficial use of water can and will occur in the state, thereby justifying continued reservation of the antedated priority pending perfection of a water right. Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27, 37 (CoJo.1997) (footnote omitted). Conditions which are to some extent dependent on future developments not within the applicant's control, are denominated as "factors" in determining whether the "can and will" statute has been satisfied, rather than as elements of the applicant's proof. See Public Servo Co. v. Board of Water Works, 831 P.2d 470,478-79 (Colo. 1992). 39. Work allegedly done in development of a conditional water right must be evaluated under the circUll1stances in existence at the time it is performed. Application ofTalco. Ltd., 769 P.2d 468, 475 (Colo. 1989). Thus, the Court properly considers only that evidence 17