Laserfiche WebLink
<br />./ <br /> <br />-29- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />and as a result, was discarded. by a large majority. The Supreme 'Court <br />has held that there is no such thing as an "Irrigation or Storage <br />Season," but that the righ tto the use of water, whether for' direct <br />application or for storage, depends entirely upon the priority dates <br />tpereof, regardless of the character of use. <br /> <br />Another important phase of water administration, involves the right <br />to store water decreed for direct use. <br /> <br />In the case of Seven Lakes vs. New Loveland and Greeley Irrigation <br />Company, decided in 1907, the Court held that an appropriation of water <br />for"direct irrigation may be temporarily stored for later use so long as . <br />. the' quantity stored, both. in time and amount, does not exceed the former <br />uses for direct irrigation. <br /> <br />A later decision of the Supreme Court in Greeley-Loveland Irrigation <br />Company vs. Farmer Pawnee Company, had the effect of reversing.the fore- <br />going decision, so ti1at the present law prohibits the storage of water <br />decreed for immediate use. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Another problem which is becoming increasingly important, is that <br />involving the preferential right one may have to make an exchange of <br />water at times when the 'natural flow of the stream is not sufficient to <br />meet the requirements of all those who may at the same time, desire to' <br />avail themselves of this privilege. <br />. <br />In 1944, a suit was filed in the District Court in Water District <br />No, 11, against the water officiais which, among other matters, involved <br />the question of evaporation losses from the Sugar Loaf,' Twin Lakes and' <br />Clear Creek Reservoirs.waich are located in the Upper Arkansas River <br />Basin. Following weeks of. testimony, the Court rendered a decision which <br />required that the owners of these reservoirs be charged with losses due <br />to evaporation from the surfaces thereof, which affected decreed rights <br />senior to those of the reservoirs. The Court directed the State Engineer <br />to determine the amount of such losses monthly, and to release from the <br />reservoirs to the streams, the equivalent quantity of water. The owners <br />of the reservoirs did not elect to appeal the decision to the Supreme <br />Court and hence, the judgment of the trial Court is limited to the three <br />reservoirs in question. <br /> <br />'f <br /> <br />The involved computations to determine the evaporation losses each <br />month requires one day I s effort. It is interesting to contemplate the <br />magnitude of the effort and time which would be required should the <br />Legisl~ture enact 'a law requiring such monthly determinations to be made <br />for the hundreds of other channel reservoirs throughout the State. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The placing of the local water officials under Civil Service has <br />incr.eased the efficiency of administration since it removes them from the <br />pernicious effect of undue influence by those who may be seeking favors. <br />A water official, through lack of a proper understanding of the laws, <br />or of experience, may commit wrongful acts to the injury of the water <br />users, but under no condition must he allow his decisions and actions to <br />be influenced by unwarranted requests, demands, ~avoritism, or gratiuties. <br />Knowledge of the functions and duties of his office and experience and <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~..L~_,< <br />