FLOOD00515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

an existing right that presently is being evaporated, consumed, or otherwise lost to beneficial use and either expand his own use or transfer the salvaged water so long as there is no injury to other water rights." At least one early Colorado case seems to approve the idea.that more economical use of one's water could enable the use of the saved portion on additional lands through a change of use proceeding and subject to the no injury requirement." The absence of any efforts to use salvaged water to date may reflect the relatively small amount of water that can be realized by such efforts in most situations compared with their cost. Better technical analysis of this issue is needed. Transfer of a Con.ditioIuzJ Water Right Colorado law considers a conoitional water right to be a vested property interest." Changes of conditional water rights are specifically authorized by statute'" As a general matter the rules applying to the change of any water right apply in the case of a change of a conditional water right. In fact, however, there are some peculiarities in the case of conditional water rights that raise special issues. No water has ever been diverted and applied to a beneficial use in the case of a conditional water right; there is only the specific intent to do so, coupled with overt actions sufficient to give notice of that intent. Conditional rights are protected only to the extent that due diligence in pursuing this intent or plan is exercised." A change may involve a completely different use of the water in contravention of the intent upon which the right was granted. Or the change may be made as a means of making developable an otherwise infeasible project." . Nevertheless, changes in conditional water rights have been pennitted, and special problems in evaluating injury under such changes have been considered. The transferable quantity of water has been determined to be tfie ~mount 'contemplated" under the conditional ('.~~ree so that there would be no injury to junior appropriators from the change.'oo Transf= of ConJraa Water Water may1>e supplied for use under contract by another individual or entity holding' the appropriative water right. The rights to such water are primarily defined by the terms of the contract, and are voluntarily established. Colorado law does affect contract rights in some circumstances. For example, a carrier ditch companylOl is required by statute to provide water to the classes of users it is incorporated to serve whenever it has water in its ditch unsold, and to have the rates for furnishing this water fIXed by the board of county commissioners.lO' Contract provisions have been struck down in several cases because they were found to be inequitable to the water users and against public policy.,m Green v. Chaffee Ditch Company'''' illustrates the differences between the legal right to change an appropriative water right and the right to change a water contract. Holders of a contract right for irrigation water supply sought to sell this right to a city. The original appropriative right had been conveyed to a ditch company in 1870 in return for a contract right to an equivalent amount of water for irrigation of specified lands. The supreme court noted that "[s]uch a contracted right is far different from the 'water right' acquired by [the original appropriator]. Originally the right [of the appropriator] had the status of real property . and could be conveyed without reference to the land on which it had been used."lO' Following his agreement with the ditch company, the former appropriator "becomes only a consumer whose rights were determined by contract...."'C6 Bureau of Reclamation projects supplied about 2.4 million acre-feet of water 9