7776 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

er, the Colorado Supreme Court has construed this provision not to allow preferred users to demand that less preferred users not take water in times of short supply, but only to allow preferred users to purchase or condemn less preferred users' water rights.13/ Any other construction would be unconstitutional be- cause a water right is a property right which cannot be taken or damaged without just compensation.14/ The practical result of this preference scheme has been the large scale condemnation of agricultural water rights by municipali- ties. Agricultural rights are condemned instead of industrial or manufacturing rights because they are less expensive to acquire. In an attempt to reduce the amount of agricultural water rights being condemned by municipalities the state legislature in 1975 enacted the Water Rights Condemnation Act.15/ The primary re- striction placed on the power of condemnation by the 1975 Act-is that only enough water to meet the municipality's anticipated needs for the next 15 years may be condemned.16/ To establish this need the municipality has to prepare a detailed community growth and development plan.l7/ In addition the municipality is required to prepare a detailed statement describing the water rights to be condemned, the effects upon the river basin from the loss of the irrigated lands, unavoidable adverse and irreversible effects of the condemnation and alternative sources of water sup- plies with cost comparisons.18/ The constitutionality of the Act was reviewed by the Colorado Su- preme Court in City of Thornton v. Farmers Reservoir and Irriga- tion Company, 194 Colo. 526, 575 P.2d 382 (1978). The court held certain provisions of the act to be unconstitutional as applied to home rule cities. In particular, the court held that the pro- visions of the Act which call for a determination of necessity and limit the right of condemnation to anticipated water needs for the next 15 years were in violation of Article XX of the Col- orado Constitution, which grants home rule cities the power of eminent domain. 2. Priority of the water right and the postponement doc- trine In order to implement the priority aspect of the prior appropria- tion doctrine it was necessary to provide a means for establish- ing the amount and priority of the various appropriations. This role has historically been, and continues to be, filled by the courts. Whenever an owner or claimant of a water right wants a court decree establishing the amount and priority of his water right, he must apply to the court for an adjudication of that right. The court will then hear the evidence and enter a decree -6-