<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 />
|