FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Int sources, .-- provlOes an appropnate system ror COntrolling water llution consistent with the exercise of water rights. This framework ods additional emphasis in the interest of protecting and enhancing : ability of states to develop and manage their waters. In water-short states, water diversiori and storage is critical to a l!thy and diverse economy, and water must be captured and stored ring the few months of snowmelt in spring and early summer in ler to be available for later use. 170 Return flows from prior uses are tical to the quantity of water that is available downstream for subse- lnt use. 171 However, if water quality is not suitable for use because point and nonpoint sources of pollutants; the intent and purpose of ~er rights law are undermined. The right to withdraw water from I natural streams in the exercise of water rights must be accompa- d by common law and statutory remedies designed to redress and ~vent the waste of the water resource that is caused by harmful pol- ants being released into the streams of the state. Instream waste imilation, however, should not be recognized as a beneficial use. ilizing water to dilute wastes, in lieu of control or treatment at the Irce, is a wasteful dissipation of the available resource and runs mter to the prior appropriation doctrine of "maximum utilization," ich is designed to bolster the use of appropriative rights. 172 The implications of state water rights law for quality control are : well understood, even by many vigorous advocates of the prior )ropriation doctrine. Holders of junior water rights are entitled to a ility of water suitable for their use, regardless of the date of their )ropriation.Long before the federal Clean Water Act and state tutory water quality law, courts required water quality control asures as an essential aspect of protecting the doctrine of use ough prior appropriation. It makes no difference whether the IVnstream use is junior or senior; all water rights are entitled to be ,tected against pollutant discharges that are injurious to the benefi- t uses for which water has .been appropriated, because a priority in use of water is a property right whose value cannot be "taken or 168. 33 D.S.C. ~ 1342 (1982). 169. 33 U.S.C. ! 1329 (Supp. V 1988). 170. See Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 457.58 (1922). 171. See Water Supply & Storage Co. v. Curtis. 733 P.2d 680, 685 (Colo. 1987); Comstock v. Isay, 55 Colo. 244, 254-55,133 P. 1107,1110.11 (1913). 172. FeJlhauer v. People. 167 Colo. 320, 336, 447 P.2d 986, 994 (1968); see Alamosa-La lara ~r Users Protection Ass'n v. Gould. 674 P.2d 914, 935 (Colo. 1984).