My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02006
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
FLOOD02006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 12:58:00 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:31:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Stream Name
All
Title
Institutional Roles and Water Marketing in Colorado and Western States
Date
9/26/1994
Prepared For
World Bank Group
Prepared By
Gergory Hobbs
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />real risk of requantification of the water right based on actual <br />historical consumptive use," Pueblo West Metropolitan <br />District v. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, <br />717 P.2d 955, 959 (1986). Until then, the original decree <br />"continues to quantify the right despite the likelihood that the <br />water user may never actually divert that amount," Id. <br />Nevertheless, an "implied condition is read into every decree" <br />that "diversions are limited to an amount sufficient for the <br />purpose for which an appropriation is made, even though such <br />limitation may be less than the decreed rate of diversion, <br />Rominiecki v. McIntyre Livestock Corp., 633 P.2d 1064, 1067 <br />(1981). <br /> <br />B. Return Flows From Use of Native Basin Waters Belong <br />to the Stream to Fill Appropriations in Order of Priority. <br /> <br />The essential principle governing water transfers in <br />Colorado is that all water rights, including juniors, are <br />entitled to maintenance of the water supply conditions of the <br />stream as they existed under the priority system at the time of <br />appropriation, Green v. Chaffee Ditch Co., 150 Colo. 91, 106, <br />371 P.2d 775, 783 (1960). Due to seasonal variation in <br />precipitation, no one can guarantee what the available supply <br />will be in any given year for direct diversion or storage; what <br />the water rights system does is to establish priorities for use <br />of the available supply, Nava;o Development Co., Inc. v. <br />sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374, 1377 (Colo. 1982). The Colorado State <br />Water Engineer may issue partial or total curtailment orders-as <br />necessary to enforce priorities under the court decrees, C.R.S. <br />37-92-501 et seq. <br /> <br />The available supply to fill appropriations includes <br />return flows from use of native in-basin water, Kelly Ranch v. <br />southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 191 Colo. 65, <br />77-78, 550 P.2d 297 (1976). The critical nature of return flows <br />in Colorado has long been recognized. In 1913, the colorado <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.