PUB00068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-44- While in some localities there is need at the present time for some change in the methods of use of appropriated water~ it would not be pOSSible or desirable to change the basic underlying principles cf the appropriation system. What at times have been alleged to be wasteful practices are not as wasteful as appears on the surface. The early decrees were granted by the courts on the basis of alleged beneficial application of water. At that time neither the courts nor the water users had an adequate conception of the proper duty of water. In Colo- rado this resulted in decreeing to the original appropriators excess quantities of water. The lands irrigated by the original appropriators lie contiguous to the streams and, in general, consist of, or are under- laid by, a quick draining formation. The application of excess quantities of water to these shoe-string tracts of lands along the stream systems does not result in an unduly high consumption of the water because the water not needed currently for the growth of the crops re~urns rapidly to the streams and is available for diversion and use by low~r irrigators. This process actually has a beneficial effect upon the regimen of the flow of the stream in that it tends to reduce the high flows, and increases the flow during periods when it otherwise would be small. . In practically every stream basin in Cclorado, however, where the water supplies have been over-appropriated and where there is need for supplemental supplies, more efficient use could be made of the water if certain consolidations of ditches could be made and, in some cases, if some of the water now being diverted under direct-flow de.cr_aeuLQ.ould be ~E1!:J,atS'.Q aIle! ulllafle ..iijOi'U.ls9cQ:l~::1Erough=t~~medium _ o:('~res&!'voi:!'s. The- desirability of changes in the present practice has been recognized for many years but little has been done about it until recently, due chiefly to manls inherent resistance to any change in the order of things which have been long established. Since water rights are in the nature of a property right, it would not be possible or desirable to change the fundamental doctrine and deprive a water user of the benefits he has enjoyed frcm his water right. However, it must be recognized on the one hand that a water right does not necessarily' make water and, on the other hand, that a diversion of water under. a right, beyond a certain limit, ceases to be a beneficial use. , It has been suggested that a centralized contrQl over the use of water__YWlll.d-:-reSlllt.j,p_a mQLe beneficiS,r-and efficient use of that water. ~~~h acqrrl;rcl. exis_ts..i~'CQ19rasf9 ;-b1.ltTtdoes not prov1dEl"a-.coniiile'Ee solution to the problem. The state Engineeyrof Colorado administers the -useef that water which is covered by court decrees. He, theoretically, has the pcwer to limit the use to beneficial use. Actually this has been very difficult to accomplish because of the inability of anyone to determine, within those limits necessary for administrative purposes, what constitutes beneficial use. Even the diversion of direct-flow water for winter application has been considered of sufficient benefit to prevent its being curtailed by the Office of the State Engineer. Neither the State Engineer nor any other state entity has the power to bring about the consolidation of ditches, or permit the storing of direct-flow water. The inefficient use of water varies between wide limits from locality to locality within the State. The majority of the losses result~ .