4202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a ties the implied limitation that diversions are limited to those sufficient for the purposes for which the appropriation was made, regardless of the fact that such limitation may be less than the decreed rate of diversion." Weibert v. Rothe Brothers, 200 Colo. 310, 618 P.2d 367, 372 (1980). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other western courts have found that "beneficial use is a dynamic concept, which is variable according to conditions . . . and therefore [is variable] over time." United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 697 F.2d 851, 855 (9th Cir. 1983). California courts have taken the same tack. In 1986, in the leading Sacramento Delta decision, the California Court of Appeals said this: No water rights are inviolable; all water rights are sub- ject to governmental regulation . . . . If the Board is authorized to weigh the values of competing beneficial uses, then logically it should also be authorized to alter the historic rule of 'first in time, first in right' by imposing permit conditions which give a higher priority to a more preferred beneficial use even though later in time. United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, 182 Cal. App. 3d 82, 277 Cal. Rptr. 161 (1986). Those words did not come from liberal California judges. They came up from the ground, from the stresses imposed by popu- lation, development, wasteful practices, and scarce supplies. They are precisely the same factors that we face in Colorado, ever more severely each day. The adoption of regulations to -15-