Laserfiche WebLink
Water judge refus!?d to make these determinations because he believed that such limits would <br />infringe on the right to appropriate guaranteed by the Colorado Consti.tution. As wi:ll be shown, <br />the Water judge was incorrect. <br />B. The Wate:r Court's Refusal to Limit the'RICD is Contrary to Long-Established <br />Water Law Principles. <br />The Water judge's refusal to limit the Applicant's determination as to the si ze and scope <br />of its water right :E'or an RICD is not only inconsistent with the letter of section 37-92-103(10.3) <br />and purpose the of Senate Bill 216, but also with the doctrine of "maximzem utilization of the <br />water of this state:." Fellhaarer v. People, 167 Colo. 320, 336, 447 P.:?d 986, 994 (1968) <br />(emphasis in orig,inal); see also Alamosa-La Jara Water Users Protection Ass'n v. Gould, 674 <br />P.2d 914, 935 (Colo. 1983) ("the objective of `maximum use' administration is `optimum <br />use. "'). Appropriations for irrigation and municipal purposes are limited by how much the <br />appropriator can divert under reasonably efficient practices for a particular use: "A. water right <br />comes into existc-nce only througn application of the water to the appropriator's beneficial use; <br />that beneficial u:>e then becomes the basis, measure, and limit of the appropriation„" Santa Fe <br />Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 53 (Co1o. 1999). "Be,neficial use," <br />: as defined in section 37-92-103(4), inciudes four elements: The use must be an arnount of water <br />that is (a) reasor.Lable and appropriate (b) under reasonably efficient practices (c) to accomplish <br />the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made (d) without waste. For e;xaxnple, it has <br />been held that water users cannot command the entire flow of a stream to place a ioortion of the <br />stream to beneficial use. See City of Colorado Springs v. Bender, 148 Colo. 458, 462, 366 P.2d <br />SSZ, 555 (1961); Empire Water dc Power Co. v. Cascade Town Co., 205 F. 123, 129 (8th Cir. <br />1913); Schodde v. Twin Falls Land cPc Water Co., 224 U.S. 107, 117(1912). Significantly, while <br />15