9377

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9377
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: 16th Annual Colorado Water Workshop.
• USFW Year: 1991.
• USFW - Doc Type: Western State College.
• Copyright Material: NO

B.

1.

The burden for showing no injury is on the
applicant. Weibert v. Rothe Bros., Inc., 618
P.2d 1367 (1980). Does the bill shift this
burden to other right holders of the stream?
Will this bill offer any protection for the
continuation of return flow patterns? will
the legislation result in increased
litigation since applicant need only "claim"
no injury?

C. In change cases, no double dipping by using both
the original and the changed rights is allowed.
Does bill allow use of original diversion and
conditional conservation water right at the same
time?

D. Return flows may be used to meet compact calls.
will water which has traditionally been used for
compact calls be consumed elsewhere on the river
thus enlarging the water right and requiring
compact call to be fulfilled by curtailing other
rights?

E. Only one who adds to the water supply (salvaged or
developed water) is entitled to claim a water
right for additional water and "one who lines a
canal with concrete. . . without adding to the
existing water, is not entitled to a decree
therefor." Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District v. Shelton Farms, 187 Colo.
181 at p. 186, 529 P.2d 1321 (1975). Does this
bill amend fundamental water law to allow a decree
holder to claim a right in water without an
increase in the amount of water?

III. Is this legislation necessary? Many argue that decree
holders can presently conserve water, and sell and
change the part which otherwise would be consumed.
C.R.S. 37-92-103(5) could be clarified and amended to
define change of water right to include "changes of
conditional water rights as well as changes of water
rights, and FURTHER MAY INCLUDE ANY PORTION OF A WATER
RIGHT A WATER COURT FINDS HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND IS
NO LONG~R REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THE DECREED BENEFICIAL
USE."