Laserfiche WebLink
lost to evaporation. Zigan 758 P.2d at 177. The gravel pits <br />were eventually reclaimed and turned into ponds that could <br />support recreation and wildlife. Id. at 182. In both cases, <br />the operators argued that the water involved in the mining <br />process was merely a nuisance to their operations and, <br />therefore, could not effectuate an appropriation of the water. <br />See Three Bells, 758 P.2d at 170; Zigan, 758 P.2d at 182. We <br />rejected this argument, holding that the pits constituted <br />"wells" for the purpose of obtaining water by appropriation for <br />the "beneficial use" of wildlife habitats and recreation. See <br />Three Bells, 758 P.2d at 175; Zigan, 758 P.2d at 181 -82; see <br />also State v. Sw. Colo. Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294, <br />1322 (Colo. 1983) (holding that land reclamation and dust <br />suppression are beneficial uses of water). <br />In Three Bells, we noted that "Ja]lthough [the operator] is <br />not digging the pits for the purpose of capturing ground water, <br />and the water that accumulates hinders mining operations, the <br />interception of ground water is the inevitable result of <br />excavating pits to a depth below the water table." 758 P.2d at <br />174 (emphasis added); see also Zigan, 758 P.2d at 181. The same <br />is true with the CBM process. While the purpose of the mining <br />operation is to obtain gas, not water, the withdrawal of water <br />and its accumulation in the storage tanks is the "inevitable <br />result" of the CBM process. <br />13 <br />