|
<br />L....U "U.... n..."...... ~.. p.""............ 1,.V V,",U'-'.I..U,,,"u.o. U~, ,""VUJUUJ,""U u;y UH...l1U~ VJ.. au
<br />)solute" decree. ,.,
<br />Every water court decree recognizing a water right in Colorado
<br />I four principal features: (I) it names a source of supply in the wa-
<br />s of the natural streams or groundwaters tributary thereto; (2) it has
<br />>riority date that establishes its order of administration relative to all
<br />ler water rights; (3) it specifies a quantity of water that can be di-
<br />ted, stored, or otherwise captured, possessed, and controlIed from
<br />, natural stream in priority to the exclusion of more junior appropri-
<br />)ns; and (4) it specifies a beneficial use or uses to which the water
<br />,y be lawfully applied.
<br />Each of the four elements of a water right has an essential func-
<br />n. Source of supply determines from what stream and at what point
<br />diversion or storage the water may be withdrawn from other uses
<br />the exclusive use of the appropriator.186 Priority determines which
<br />ter rights can be exercised when there is not sufficient water avail-
<br />e under prevailing hydrologic conditions to meet all appropriations;
<br />s element, which authorizes the appropriator to fully satisfy his ap-
<br />lpriation by taking available quantities of water to the exclusion of
<br />ior appropriations, has been described as the most valuable aspect
<br />the water right.I'7 Quantity determines the amount of water that
<br />I be withdrawn for beneficial use directly or by storage through a
<br />sonably efficient means, without waste; quantity typically is ex-
<br />ssed in terms of a flow rate (cubic feet per second) or in an absolute
<br />Dunt (acre-feet).l8' Beneficial use establishes the purpose for which
<br />
<br />185. CoLO. REV. STAT. ~ 37-92-301(4) (1973); see Trans-County Wilter, Inc. v. Central Colo.
<br />w'Conservancy Dist., 727 P.2d 60, 65 (Colo. 1986); Mooney v. Kuiper, 194 Colo. 477, 478, S7J
<br />538.539 (1978).
<br />1186. See Broyles v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 638 P.2d 244, 249-50 (Colo. 1981); Granby Ditch &
<br />h-oir Co. v. Hallenbeck, 127 Colo. 236, 255 P.2d 96.5 (19.53). To have a valid appropriation there
<br />i be a plan for use whereby the water will be diverted, stored, or otherwise captured, possessed, or
<br />;"1100, except "for the instream flow appropriations of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
<br />). REV. STAT. ~ 37.92.103(3)(aXII) (Supp. 19S8); k!. ~ JOS(9)(b) (1973).
<br />187. Navajo Devel. Co. v.Sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374, J377, 1380 (Colo. 1982). The word "prior-
<br />$ a shorthand reference to "priority of appropriation," which refers to water previously unappro-
<br />sd from the available source of supply. What is appropriated is a quantity of water that lawfully
<br />e taken to the exclusion of those who have junior priorities. When there is not enough water to
<br />'f all appropriations, the relative priority of the rights allocates the entire quantity of water avail~
<br />n (he stream. Therefore, the essential stick in the bundle is the relative priority to take the entire
<br />Int of water that has been appropriated by the appropriator when that amount is available in the
<br />
<br />n.
<br />
<br />188. See Fort Lyon Canal Co. v. Amity Mut. Irrigation Co., 688 P.2d 1110, 1 t 13 (Colo. 1984);
<br />)fColorado Springs v. Bender, 148 Colo. 458, 461-63, 366 P.2d .552, 555 (1961) (direct flow right);
<br />
|