7921 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

We think there may be a constitutional appropriation of water without its being at the instant taken .from the bed of the stream. This court has held that the true test of the appropriation of water is the successful application thereof to the beneficial use designated, and the method of distributing or carrying the same, or making such application, is immaterial. [Thomas v. Guiraud, 6 Colo. 530, (1883).] The court also elaborated on other aspects of Colorado I s rejection of the riparian doctrine and subsequent legislation, including the "Meadow Act" (which was enacted in 1880, and remains in the statute books as CRS 37-86-113 (1973)) in which the legislature determined that lIa valid appropriation may be made without a headgat'e or ditch of natura 1 overfl ow waters wi th the ri ght to construct a ditch for the taking of such waters with the priority when the stream subs ides." The const itut i ona 1 ity of the Meadow Act was subsequently upheld in two cases that came before the Court in 1909 and 1910. Additionally, the Court noted that the State of Idaho, which has a constitutional provision similar to Colorado's, upheld that its Constitution does not require actual physical diversion. State Dept. of Parks v. Dept. of Water Admin. [96 Idaho 440, 530 P.2d 924 (1974)]. The court explained that it was not until 1969 that the legislature prescribed the first statutory requirement that a diversion was required as an element of appropriation: (5) 'Diversion' or 'divert' means removing water from its natural course or location, or controlling water in its natural course or location, by means of a ditch, canal, flume, reservoir, bypass, pipeline, conduit, well, pump, or other structure or device. From this initial statutory language the general assembly made a modifica- tion, eliminating an actual diversion requirement from the definition of an appropriation in S.B. 97. With this rationale, the Court held that under S.B. 97 the Colorado Water Conservation Board can make an instream appropriation without diversion in the conventional sense. The Court further emphasized that this holding did not cause any erosion to other Colorado cases that held that a diversion is an essential element of the water appropriations involved in those cases [supra, at 574]. As to second issue, that "the water court erred in not 1 i mi t i ng the awards to 'water available by law and interstate compact' ," the Water Conserva- tion Districts intended that the wording in S.B. 97 mean that junior appropriators may have these rights adjudicated and they would be superior to those decreed to the Water Conservation Board, and that this wording means that the only awards the WCB may receive are to water already adjudicated to senior appropriators downstream. The court disagreed with the Water Conserva- tion Districts' position and stated that: 16