BOARD01250

• Board Meeting Date: 12/9/1964
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

the state and then to the Supreme Court. But
at least we start out with a technical adminis-
trative finding as to the availability of water,
which does not now exist today in our state
water laws. Most states have gone over to
this particular practice - this administrative
determination first.

Third, that ground water be presumptively
classified by geological formation and geo-
graphical area as either tributary or nontri-
butary, through administrative decision of
the State Engineer. Again we would anticipate
that other agencies, the Ground Water Commis-
sion, this Board, and the Geological survey,
would cooperate with the State Engineer in
determining either tributary or nontributary
waters. This again is only a presumption which
could be overcome by evidence in the courts of
law. We say again that if wells are to be
drilled, the State Engineer must determine
whether or not such wells are tapping
tributary water.

I

Fourth, that tributary ground waters be
defined as those waters which, if not inter-
cepted, would be available to and required for
the fulfillment of surface decrees in accord-
ance with the doctrine of prior appropriation,
with the exception set forth under the next
paragraph. In other words, again from a
strictly scientific viewpoint, it can be argued
that all waters are tributary and that the
Supreme Court presumption is entirely correct.
But the point is, where? Much of the water
which originates in the Republican River
drainage is not tributary to any stream in
Colorado but it may reappear in the Mississippi
River system somewhere. So the question is,
how does ground water affect the decreed rights
under our existing laws?

Fifth, that nontributary ground waters
be defined as:

a. Those waters which in their natural
course would not be available to and required
for the fulfillment of surface decrees in