|
OCT -07 -2003 14:44 FROM -DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T -562 F.004 /008 F -774
<br />594 P.2tl 570. ColursLlLj Rivcr Water Conxrv;iOou Dist v. Colorado Water Comierv.itton Bd., (Colo, Page 4
<br />1979)
<br />trrigatior►. We Think thcrc may be a constitutional
<br />4ppropriaTiotn of warer wiihmit tt, being at The
<br />instant liken from the Lied of the birvam. `ihn
<br />court has held th:u 'the true test of rhv
<br />appropriation o[ waTcr is die . 'imxvzislul applicallon
<br />[hereof to the hcnulicial use designated, and the
<br />111en1lad of distributing or carrying Tile same, or
<br />making such application, is immaterial.' Thomas
<br />v. Guiraud, 6 Cults. 530." (hinphasis added)
<br />Many ul tite early scTrlers in this region cant; irom
<br />places to the cast and Europe where the use of water
<br />was untroiled by tltc owners of the land through
<br />which the strum ran. In our grid area, There could
<br />by little agriculture or other development upon the
<br />lion - riparian lands absent a doctrine permitting;
<br />Transporrarion to them of water from rile suealns.
<br />'This was a prinnc tnecessily for this new country, and
<br />The right so w Licvclop was assured and guaraiurvd
<br />by this "right To clivert" provision of our
<br />con� Lit utlotl. Coffin V. Leif H;tnd Ditch Ct)., 6
<br />Colo 413 (1882).
<br />Idaho has a similar c0T11,f tutional provision. Its
<br />supreme court has held "that our constitution doei
<br />noi ruclOre actual physical diversion." State Duet.
<br />of Parks v. Dept. of Wager Admill., 96 Idaho 440,
<br />530 P,2d 924 (1974). The ldiho court there cited
<br />Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 P 2cl 370
<br />(1960).
<br />Four years following The adoption of our
<br />Constitution, aie General Assembly onactrd the
<br />"Meadow Act," which still remains on our statute
<br />books. Section 37 -56 -113, C.R.S.1973. This act
<br />permits a valid [197 Colo. 4751 appropriation
<br />without a hcadrate or ditch of natural overflow
<br />waters with the right to conscruct a ditch for the
<br />taking Of such wain with the same priority when the
<br />stream subsides. IT is apparunt ghat members of the
<br />CT Tterdl Asscrllbly, acting so shortly alter the
<br />adopOun of the cortstiwTion, did not agree that it Est
<br />exclusio alierius. Rights acquired under the
<br />"Meadow Act" were upheld in fiurnphrcyN '1'utulel
<br />Co. v. Frank, 46 Colo. 523, 105 P. 1093 (1909) snd
<br />Broad Run Inv. Co. v, Dcuel Cu., 47 Colo. 573,
<br />108 P. 755 (1910).
<br />In 1886 this court considered the question of
<br />whether storing surplus water in a natural reservoir
<br />in ihc bed of a stream was adequate for an
<br />appropriation. L.arimer Co. Resvrvnir Co. v.
<br />l.uthe, supra. if was argued that, when rho
<br />Cun .htiluttutl rccog aizcd Thy= rim-bt tU zppTL)prtalc water
<br />by divcrtiuon, it cxcludecl appropriation by any *574
<br />otlncr means; anti further 14t tlLC wore "divert"
<br />meant to carry the water Away from the bed or
<br />chatltwl Of the am:am- Tile court rCicutcd both of
<br />tllrse argu,nznrs in urhulriing a valid appropriation.
<br />In 1969 [llc first staturory 1'equjrcn1cr1[ of diversion
<br />carne into being:
<br />"(5) 'Diversion' or 'divcrr' nlcan.; removing water
<br />fT0Tn its MLtral course or loCarion, or controlling
<br />water in its natural course or location, by means of
<br />I, dilvh, canal, llunac, Tc�&TVOlr, bypass, pipeline,
<br />cornduii, well, pump, or other atructurc ur device.
<br />"(6) 'Appropriation' means rile diversion of a
<br />►:ertain portion of The wafers of The smw and the
<br />application of the same to a beneficial use." 1969
<br />Pertrt.Supp., C. R.S. 1963, 148 -11 -3.
<br />In 1973, four years later, the General assembly
<br />made ale modificaTion here involved. IT deleTcd the
<br />diversion requirements froth the definition of an
<br />appropriation and :ti the same time in S.13. 97
<br />enacted:
<br />"For the benefit and enjoyment of present and
<br />future gencrstions, 'beneficial use' shall also
<br />include the appropriation by Tltc sTatltce of
<br />Colorado in the manner prescribed by law of such
<br />minimum Tlows between sps:cilie points or levels
<br />for and on natural strums and lakes as are
<br />required To preserve the nawral environment to a
<br />reasonable degree."
<br />In Colo. River Dist. v. Rocky Mountain Power
<br />Co., 158 Colo. 331, 406 P.2d 798 (1965), the
<br />Colorado River Water Conservation District played
<br />a somewhat different role. This District way created
<br />fay stature in 1937 and was given the power, among;
<br />oT11CrS,
<br />"To file upon and hold for the use of the public
<br />sufficient. water of any natural Ntre m to maintain a
<br />Constant stream flow in the amount neuasary to
<br />preserve fish, and to use such water in connvctiou
<br />with reTaillitlg ponds fur the propagation of GNh for
<br />the benefit of the public;" Section 37- 46- 107(1)0).
<br />Under this power it brought the action to preserve
<br />and keep water in the ,trcarri to the extent necessary
<br />for ills preacrvation of fish life.
<br />Cs) 2003 West, a Thomson business. Not claim To original U.S. Govt. works.
<br />
|