Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1989] <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION <br /> <br />pose of establishing the legal right to make consumptive depleti <br />from the natural streams for uses elsewhere, such as irrigation, min: <br />and manufacturing, which riparian law considered to be artificial u <br />The essence of the prior appropriation doctrine is that an appropril <br />(or water user) has the right in priority to deplete the natural strean <br />the exclusion of others, in the amount necessary for beneficial ( <br />nonwasteful consumptive) application of the water taken. By apl <br />priation, users take water in order of their priority and shortage: <br />available supply fall entirely upon junior rights, which are curta <br />until such time as senior rights are fully satisfied. The prior approp <br />tion doctrine was developed in the arid West where water is gene" <br />in short supply, and the security of entitlement provided by the c <br />trine was key to the human economy. WI A meaningful shorthand <br />planation of the distinction between the two water law doctrine <br />that "[t]he appropriation system is built on making full use of av <br />able resources; the riparian system recognizes rights to unimpe <br />flows. "102 <br />Some states have adopted a mixed riparian/prior appropriat <br />system that combines elements of both doctrines. The riparian SYSl <br />applies in twenty-nine states, the prior appropriation system in r <br />states, and the hybrid system in ten states, while Hawaii and Louisi <br />have systems unique to their cultural heritage.,o3 <br />Section 10 I (g) expresses the continuing intent of Congress to <br />low each state to choose and administer!04 the water allocation sysl <br />that best suits its needs and to implement its determinations thro' <br />the award of water rights for particular uses. <br /> <br />2. Section 10 I (g)'s Specific Mandate of Protection for <br />Water Rights <br /> <br />The first sentence of section 10 I (g) provides that the "authori <br /> <br />101. See Coffin v. Left Hand D.itch Co.. 6 Colo. 443, 447 (1882). Because of the slale's earl) <br />continued lead role, the "pure" doctrine of prior appropriation has come to be known as the "Colc <br />doctrine." A valid appropriation requires intent to control and apply a certain amount of water <br />beneficial use, together with an act demonstrating such intent, sufficient to give nolice. City & Cc <br />of Denver v. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist., 696 P.2d 730, 745 (Colo. 1985); Bar 70 E <br />poses. Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 703 P.2d 1297, 1307 (Colo. 1985); City of Aspen v. Colorado River V <br />ConServation Dist., 696 P.2d 758, 764 (Colo. 1985). <br />lO2. D. GETCHES, WATER LAW IN A NUTSHELL 204 (1984). <br />lO3. See id at 4-7. <br />104. In Colorado, in order for a right to be administered, the right to use must be evidenced <br />judicial decree. CoLO. REV. STAT. 99 37-92-301(2), -5Ot (1973 & Supp. 1988); Ft. Morgan Rese <br />& Irrigation Co. v. McCune. 71 Colo. 256, 257, 206 P. 393, 394 (1922). Water rights are adminis' <br />according to the year in which the application was filed, and within that year, according to the al <br />priation date. CoLO. REV. STAT. 99 37-92-301, -305(1), .306 (1973 & SuPP. 1988); United Stat <br />