Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

required an eventual diversion. Thomas v. Guiraud 6 Colo. 530, 533 (1883); Larimer Co. v. Luthe 8 Colo. 614, 9 P. 794 (1886); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Rocky Mountain Water Co. 102 Colo. 351, 79 P.2d 373, 378 (1938). This Court has recognized two classes of appropriations: one for ditches diverting water directly from the stream, and one for the storage of water to be used subsequently. Handy Ditch Co. v. Greeley & Loveland Irr. Co. 280 P. 481, 481 (Colo. 1929). But, appropriation has always required diversion and beneficial use. Denver v. Miller 149 Colo. 96, 368 P.2d 982, 984 (1962). "Water can be actually diverted only by taking it from the stream." City and County of Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. 276 P.2d 992, 998 (Colo. 1954). In 1965, this Court refused to eliminate the diversion requirement to allow appropriations of instream flows, despite their advantages to the State. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Rocky Mountain Power Co. 406 P.2d 798, 799 -800 (Colo. 1965). Thus, while one may appropriate water by diverting it into retaining ponds for fish culture, one may not appropriate water by leaving it in the stream for such purposes because that is 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). In 1969, consistent with the multitude of cases, starting with Giraud holding that water may be appropriated by storage where there is some diversion into a reservoir or impoundment of the water for later diversion, the Legislature defined diversion as removing water or controlling water in its natural course or location. §§ 148 -21 -3 C.R.S. (1969); 148 -9 -1 (1963); 37 -92- 103(7). The "controlling water" language was never intended to abrogate the diversion requirement. CWCB 594 P.2d at 574; see also House Journal, March 19, 1973, pp. 626 -627, 8