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 />supreme Court said that "We take judicial notice of the fact that <br />practically every decree on the South Platte River, except <br />possibly the very early ones, is dependent for its supply, and <br />for years and years has been, upon return, waste and seepage <br />water," Comstock v. Ramsey, 55 Colo. 244, 254, 133 P. 1107 <br />(1913). <br /> <br /> <br />Return flow is not .waste water." "Rather, it is <br />irrigation water seeping back to a stream after it has gone <br />underground to perform its nutritional function." Waste water is <br />excess irrigation water which does not seep into the ground after <br />application; it can be collected for reapplication without <br />interfering with return flows, and the farmer has a "duty" to <br />accomplish this so that water will not be wasted, Boulder v. <br />Boulder Left Hand Ditch, 192 Colo. 219, 222-223, 557 P.2d 1182, <br />1185 (1976). Municipal sewage effluent from use of in-basin <br />water is return flow and is not subject to recapture by the ci~y; <br />in addition, evaporation of sewage effluent as a treatment <br />technique is contrary to public policy, because it results in <br />diminishing the water resource, Pulaski Irriqation Ditch Co. v. <br />Citv of Trinidad, 70 Colo. 565, 569-570, 203 P. 681 (1922). <br />. <br /> <br />C. <br />salutary. <br /> <br />Restrictions on Water Rights Transfers are <br /> <br />A change of water right cannot be granted if "material <br />injury" would be caused to any other water right; conversely, it <br />must be granted if protective conditions can be fashioned~o <br />alleviate the injury, Las Animas Consolidated Canal Co. v. Allen, <br />688 P.2d 1102, 1108 (Colo. 1984). The burden of showing non- <br />injury is on the applicant for the change, C.R.S. S 37-92-304(3). <br /> <br />In considering whether to grant a change of water right <br />and what protective conditions are necessary to avoid material <br />injury to other water rights, the Colorado water courts consider <br />the proposed change in light of its effect and such factors as <br /> <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.