FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1989] WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION 8 I I damaged" without just compensation.'73 In Mack v. Town of Craig, I a municipality in a prior appropriation state attempted to conden the waters ofa stream for waste assimilation purposes. The Colora, Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado General Assembly had n granted a condemnation power for this purpose. Moreover, the Cou expressed extreme doubt that any such grant of authority would I constitutional in light of the constitutional protection of the right. appropriation and use of state waters. 17' . Use of the police power to implement the doctrine of prior appr' priation supplements judicial decisions like Town of Craig, which ho that water quality must be protected to maximize use of the watl resource.'76 The interest of a city or other discharger in avoiding add tional treatment costs cannot overcome the public's interest in clea water for diversion and consumption. A new water depletion under water right therefore may have the result of requiring an existing di: charger to exercise a greater degree of pollutant source control, in OJ der to meet water quality standards for the stream.177 This is not new or profound revelation. Consistent with the Town of Craig dec sion regarding municipal discharges, state courts have held that mir ing and milling operations have no right to use the waters of a strear for waste assimilation purposes to the detriment of a downstrear use.178 At the federal level, in the 1972 FWPCA Amendments, Cor gress set a goal of zero discharge of pollutants, not zero depletions, b 1985.179 Dilution was not intended to be, and is not, the solution t pollution. 180 Source control of point and nonpoint pollutants is the solution. ] point and nonpoint sources, including mining and agricultunl sources, are not adequately addressed, there will be continuing ane perhaps insurmountable pressure brought to bear on the ability 0 i I' 173. See Farmers Irrigation Co. v. Game &. Fish Comm'n. 149 Colo. 318, 324, 369 r.ld 551, 56 (1962). 174. 68 Colo. 337, 191 P. 101 (1920). 175. ld at 343, 191 P. at 103: Cities and towns, in the absence of direct legislative permission to that end, have no right to befoul and contaminate our public streams by discharging raw and unpurined sew. age th~rein. Indeed, it is highly questionable, whether, in view of section 5 of Article XVI of our Constitution, any such legislative permission could be lawfully given. 176. See Hobbs & Raley, supra note I, at ~ 24.04[2)(iii). 177. See id. llt,9 24.05. 178. See Suffolk Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. San Miguel Canso!. Mining & Milling Co., 9 Cola App. 407, 415, 48 P. 828, 831.32 (1897); Wilmore v. Chain O'Mines, Inc., 96 Colo. 319. 325.26, 44 P.2d 1024, 1027 (1934). 179. 33 V.S.c. ! 1251(.)(1) (1982). 180. See Hobbs & Ralev.sufJrD nnt,. 1 !Of l\'A nArl1 r...... .I.~ ~~1_..__. 1_-'_'_,:... ..,...