Laserfiche WebLink
HOLLAND&HART. 'u'Y13,z°°' <br />=age 3 <br />appropriation as we know it would fall-the phreatophytes and then the <br />individual salvaging water would have the best right. Furthermore, if <br />individuals salvaging public water lost to encroaching phreatophytes were <br />permitted to create new water rights where there is no new water, the price <br />of salt cedar jungles would rise sharply. And we could expect to see a <br />thriving, if clandestine, business in salt cedar seed and phreatophyte <br />cultivation. <br />Id. Finally, the Court in Shelton Farms emphasized that while creative and beneficial solutions <br />for the treatment of salvaged water could be fashioned, it was the General Assembly that would <br />need to do so: <br />No one on any river would be adverse to a schematic and integrated system <br />of developing this kind of water supply with control and balancing <br />considerations. But to create such a scheme is the work of the legislature, <br />through creation of appropriate district authorities with right to <br />condemnation on a selective basis, not for the courts. <br />529 P.2d at 1327. Justices Groves, in a special concurrence, stated that "[i]t is earnestly hoped <br />that the General Assembly can provide a solution so that this water, now being lost in such large <br />quantities to the phreatophytes may be brought under control." Id. at 1328. <br />The holding of Shelton Farms has been affirmed and approved many times over the years. In <br />R.J.A., Inc. u Water Users Ass'n ofDist. No. 6, 690 P.2d 823 (Colo. 1984), the applicants had <br />removed extensive deposits of peat moss and drained a swamp. They argued that because the <br />consumptive use of the swamp and peat had existed before the first appropriations had ever been <br />made on the stream, Shelton Farms did not apply. The Court disagreed, holding that "reduction <br />of consumptive use of tributary water cannot provide the basis for a water right that is <br />independent of the system of priorities." Id. at 825. This same holding has been repeated in <br />many contexts. See Giffen v. State, 690 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1984) (removal of pine and fir trees); <br />State Engineer v. Castle Meadows, Inc., 856 P.2d 496 (Colo. 1993) (increased runoff from urban <br />development); City ofAurora v. State Engineer, 105 P.3d 595 (Colo. 2005) (reduction of native <br />vegetation by lowering water table in connection with conjunctive use project). <br />In addition to an emphasis on the importance of the priority system, as described above the <br />salvage water decisions have also consistently expressed concern for the effect of a salvage water <br />credit on Colorado's environment. The Court in Shelton Farms was particularly concerned that: <br />If these decrees were affirmed, the use of a power saw or a bull-dozer <br />would generate a better water right than the earliest ditch on the river. The <br />planting and harvesting of trees to create water rights superior to the oldest <br />decrees on the Arkansas would result in a harvest of pandemonium. <br />Furthermore, one must be concerned that once all plant life disappears, the