ISFAPP00048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ~.:~;_~;i\ , r'..,. !~~:?~..' '. ~::_~~" ~.: . " ~i>' l/, i...'., ;.. , ;:,,< j " I ." . !'o, .:,-, ~' . ,'.'e. .~'.. . . ~,. '. " " .1 -'",.' '..~ :-;..' '.;, .t.-" .-"?Ii '1', ~' ',">:. "..:. .' ',.' it, and ~ remains applicable now that the legislature has changed the statutory scheme. The Court concludes that an appropriation without diversion was intended by the legislature, is not forbidden by the Constitutio~, and is permitted by decisions of the Supreme Court. As discussed above, those decisions requiring an actual physical diversion do so for a variety of reasons not related to the constitut~onaI terminology. The Court will uphold the acts of the general aSsem- bly unless the unconstitutionality thereof is clearly shown, Farmers Highline Canal & Reservoir v. Southworth, 13 Colo. 111 (1889), and as the unconstitutionality has not been shown,the Court concludes that Senate Bill 97 is a proper constitutional enac~ent . xv. The Court concludes that the use for which the water is claimed is a legitimate beneficial use as Objectors have conceded. See Denver v. Sheriff, 105 Colo. 193 (1936). XVI. The right to appropriate water guaranteed by Section 6, Article XVI of the Colorado Constitution runs only to the .unappropriated waters.. By the language of Senate Dl1l 97, the appropriation permitted can be only of those waters pre- sently unappropriated. The legislature' has declared that the actions of the applicant will result in an appropriation, sub- ject to the same restrictions and rights aa any other junior water right. The Court concludes that the waters thus identi- fied are no longer unapprop~iated ,and are not subject to addi- tional appropriation, as argued by the objectors. IWII The Court concludes that the objectors' arlJument that the water constitutionally belongs to the people and that the ":' 13 - ~ .