Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r:'0'~'\:" <br />;' i . .~ <br />~~~l" " <br />, ~5J " <br />..' ''". <br /> <br />',. <br />\ <br /> <br />,-oj <br /> <br />.::.:''1::. <br /> <br />-'-'4:;"--.' <br /> <br />'~L " <br /> <br />.< <br /> <br />Si~ilarly, th0. Court in Thomas v. Guiraud, supra, <br /> <br /> <br />recognized that actual diversion is not necessarily a pre- <br /> <br />requisite to the establishment of a lawful appropriation: <br /> <br />"The true test of appropriation of water is <br />the successful application thereof to the <br />beneficial use deslgne~ and the method of <br />divertlng or carrying the same,or making such <br />application, is immaterial." (Emphasis supplied.) <br /> <br />Id. at 533. <br />More recently, in Town of Genoa v. Westfall, supra, <br />the Court stated that: <br /> <br />"It is not necessary in every case for an <br />appropriator, of water to construct ditches <br />or artificial ways through which the water <br />might be taken from the stream in order that <br />a valid appropriation be made. The only indis- <br />ensable re uirements are that the a' ropriator <br />lnten s to use t e water or a ene lC a pur~ <br />and actually applies them to that use." (Emph"sis <br />supplled. ) <br /> <br />Id. at 547. <br /> <br />The Guiraud, Larimer, and Genoa CAses, supra, differ <br /> <br /> <br />from the present action in that these cases were primarily con- <br /> <br />cerned with whether natural methods of diversi.on, such as <br /> <br />natur~l depressions and river overflow, may lawfully be ~lsed to <br /> <br />appropriate water. The objectors' claim, on the other hand, is <br /> <br />that none of the claimed water will be diverted at all. ~one- <br /> <br />theless, the language set forth in the above cases is suffi- <br /> <br />ciently broad to support a claim for water where no diversion <br /> <br />is contemplated, provided that the water is put to h~neficial <br /> <br />use. <br /> <br />It is significant that most of the Colorodo cases <br /> <br />which have held that an actual diversion 1s required, are. .::ases <br /> <br />which involve the appropriation of water for municipal and i~ri- <br /> <br />gation purposes, e.g., Northern Colorado, supra: Board of Cpunty <br />Commissioners v. Recky Mountain Water Company, l02 Colc. JSl <br />(193&). For obvious reasons, such appropriations nearly alwajs <br /> <br />require the actual \.liversion of "-"atcr [t'om the nat,\.;.ral strearr: <br /> <br />bed to the site where the water will be applied to a beneficial <br />use. On th~ other hand, instream uses of water are clearly <br />not dependent upon actual diversion. <br /> <br />- 11 - <br /> <br />~ . <br />