Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;./~Z.i , <br /> <br />~.!" <br />~~~.J' ~:;~ ' ." .". <br /> <br />\,'::" '(. <br />y;' <br />" <br />" <br /> <br />, ~ <br /> <br />r"', <br />~~1 . <br /> <br />t-?",l. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />./.... <br />,,,/ <br />\.~'- <br /> <br />:,.... <br />..1:'," <br />:.i.t.'l. . <br /> <br />...' <br />".'. <br />~;\ ",' , <br />.~..:~: <br /> <br />~,,( . <br />~:,,:<, <br />~~:'.;'"' .:- <br /> <br />~.~-', ..,.: <br />i}1.~>,r, <br />H}~~.~; :. <br />..'.,. <br />" . <br /> <br />";,",.' <br />,,' <br /> <br />~4"-\.< <br />:~fr?;" <br />,}i~";,". _ . <br />:r.~"., ' <br />:"~',:i~:" <br />\l"" <br />,~f:' ',~. . <br />.~-, <br /> <br />~:J< '. <br /> <br />'~;.. .' <br /> <br />';,I,.'J <br />:;..t <br /> <br />'Y-:~;'.. ~, <br /> <br />~".('. ~ <br />:~r~/. ~ <br />i;};C' <br /> <br />, , <br />,~ .. <br /> <br />.....o.~.:.. . <br /> <br />1," <br />..'. .~, <br /> <br />r' <br /> <br />...:.<: <br /> <br />r,l,''''~i;!''' <br />r ,,o" <br />1 1':.: <br />", <br /> <br />, .,1 <br /> <br />I <br />-,;.c.. -.11< <br />-,'~'.. <br /> <br />,., I <br />; '~' <br /> <br />\. ",. <br />, ~ <br /> <br />" " <br /> <br />,., <br />,.y~~\ ~ <br />.;' <br />, ~ ;-~.. <br /> <br />,,;. <br /> <br />',. <br />if:~' ,;,,;:'; <br /> <br />", <br /> <br />. ';:~'~',,:, <br /> <br />. ~'i-.<< ,~!' <br /> <br />.' <br />'-,.' <br /> <br />. j-~:.. . <br /> <br />;, <br /> <br />case, it concludes that the authority does not rest exclusively <br /> <br />with the State Engineer, and it does not bar the legislature <br /> <br />from providing additional authority for the Water Conservation <br />Board to make valid appropriations for the purpose of protect- <br /> <br />. <br />ing the natural environment. It is also interesting to note, <br /> <br /> <br />that the act herein challenged was cited with approval by the <br /> <br />Supreme Court in Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dis- <br /> <br /> <br />trict v. Shelton Farms, 187 Colo. 181 (1974). <br /> <br />XII. <br /> <br />It is well settled that water law in the State of. <br /> <br />Colorado relies upon the doctrine of prior appropriation. The <br />constitution was framed to make it clear that the doctrine of <br /> <br />riparian rights was rejected. Coffin v. Left !land Ditch, 6 <br /> <br />Colo. 443 (1882). The Court is unaware of any case wherein <br /> <br />'the Supreme Court has stated that the'word "dlverttl in the con- <br /> <br />stitutional sense mandates a specific physical act but must <br /> <br /> <br />conclude, as did the Idaho Supreme Court in Sept; of Parks v. <br /> <br /> <br />Idaho Dept. of Water Administratlon, 96 Idaho 440, 530, P. 2d <br /> <br />924 (1974), that the term was used by the framers of the Con~ <br />stitution to insure the right to remove and use water for bene- <br />ficial p~oses. The Court concludes that the amount of bene- <br />ficial use is the measure of a water right,not the diversion. <br />People ex rel. Park Reservoir v. Hinderlider, 98 Colo. 505 <br />(1936). It also concludes that a physical diversion is not <br />required to obtain a water right. Larimer County Reservoir Co. <br />v. Luthe, 8 Colo. 614 (1886); Thomas #. Guiraud, 6 Colo. 530 <br />(1883); Droad Run Inv. Co. v. Duel' Snyder, 47 Colo. 573 (~9lo) I , <br />Town of Genoa v. Westfall, ~41 colo..~3k ,(19,60)., ' <br /> <br />XIII. <br /> <br />The Colorado Constitution, Article XVI, Section 5, <br /> <br />provides that: <br /> <br />" . <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />.'-. <br />'.,. <br /> <br />';, '- 9 .., <br /> <br />,,' <br /> <br />~ <br />