FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I. C - - c---.-. - ~&C&&... '-'.....~~.U.l.""'"" V.. nature are resolved by the third principle inherent in section 6, cle XVI-that competing demands for water for beneficial uses are lived by recognizing the superior right of the senior appropriator. : application of the police power to conflicts among uses or classes lseS would be nothing other than a reaHocation of the right based :omething other than the priority of the competing uses, and would 'efore be completely inconsistent with the constitutionaHy man- :d doctrine of prior appropriation. The authors do not take the position that the police power cannot lSed to regulate certain aspects of the exercise of water rights. re directly to the point, the authors do not take the position that all vities associated with the exercise of water rights are immune from llation for water quality purposes. The creation of rules and pro- lfes for the recognition and administration of water rights is rly a legitimate exercise of the police power, as are requirements ting to the means of accomplishing the use.230 In addition, regula- s to prohibit waste, restrict diversions to the duty of water, and libit discharges that impair the quality of water for other uses have ,justified as an exercise of the police power.23! The only attribute water right that cannot be restricted through the police power is exclusive right of use in priority for beneficial use without waste. 232 :er quality regulations can be upheld as a valid exercise of the po- power to the extent that they (I) protect beneficial uses, (2) do not ;ate or reaHocate water in the process, and (3) do not impose ume- r or unreasonable economic costs on the exercise of the water t9. Under Colorado law, "Beneficial use is the use of that amount o( water that is reasonable lpropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which propriation was lawfully made. ." COLO. REV. STAT. i 37-92-103 (Supp. 1988). Except (or m flow appropriations by the Colorado Water Conservation ,Board, an appropriator must also t, store or otherwise capture, possess and control a specific quantity of water for beneficial use." REV. STAT. ~! J7-92-IOJ(3)(a)(II). -305(9)(.) (Supp. 1988). 10. See State ex rei. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1981). ~1. See White, The Emerging Relationship between Environmental Regulation and Colorado ILaw, 53 U. CoLO. L. REV. 597 (1982). However, the authors believe that authority for the \tion of waste, restriction of diversions to the duty of water, and regulation of the discharge of fts in a manner that adversely affects other beneficial uses of water is also inherent in the doc. " prior appropriation, and that there is no need to resort to statutorily defined police power to t these restrictions. See Hobbs & Raley, supra note I, at i 24.04. 2. This prohibition cannot be evaded by a pro rata reduction in all diversions in order to protect Iblic interest" or by a reallocation or water to the "public," as either approach would violate CONST. art. XVI, i~ 5-6, and art. fI, ~ 25.