Trial Brief (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In 193 8, the Court held that an appropriator must both divert the water and put it to beneficial use in order to have a valid appropriation. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Rocky Mountain Water Co. 102 Colo. 351, 79 P.2d 373, 378 (1938); see also Denver v. Miller 149 Colo. 96, 368 P.2d 982, 984 (1962). In 1963, the General Assembly allowed diversions for storage, as long as water was impounded and put to future beneficial use. § 148 -9 -1, C.R.S. (1963). In 1965, the Court rejected a claim for piscatorial right without any form of diversion. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. Rocky Mtn. Power Co. 406 P.2d 798, 799 (Colo. 1965). While diverting water into retaining ponds for fish culture constitutes an appropriation, allowing water to remain in the stream for piscatorial purposes was not. Id. at 800. The right to maintenance of streamflow is riparian in nature and therefore inconsistent with the doctrine of prior appropriation. Id., citing Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Co. 224 U.S. 107, 32 S.Ct. 470, 56 L.Ed. 686 (1912). If Colorado did not have any diversion requirement, it would be equivalent to a riparian state. Id. A riparian right derives from ownership of the land abutting the water source while an appropriation right derives from application of the water to beneficial use. Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of Arapahoe v. Collard 827 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1992). Allowing an appropriation of a water right based solely on the ability to effect some change in the water flow will allow landowners to claim rights for instream flows for recreation, fishery or wildlife purposes simply by stabilizing the banks and placing boulders in the stream. In 1969, the General Assembly defined "appropriation" as "the diversion of a certain portion of waters of the state and the application the same to a beneficial use." §