|
<br />,.:.:.i".:t..
<br />
<br />~}t~,r~i~. ..-
<br />'i1~ '.,:- .:. . ~:<.
<br />",
<br />
<br />\-'~t'
<br />"':'
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />"
<br />w' O.
<br />1
<br />
<br />.:,",.
<br />
<br />...,...
<br />
<br />;.'.}
<br />
<br />"
<br />'.
<br />"';~'i' .
<br />
<br />'j!'"
<br />
<br />"
<br />.-.,,'
<br />..:.:..'~ ..
<br />:;<",,.:.
<br />
<br />-i~,j.-'"
<br />,
<br />
<br />.:.
<br />':.l;t-;;
<br />:!P:::
<br />
<br />..... ~ ,
<br />
<br />'~J ~:r~': y
<br />
<br />"~~f~ -:<
<br />. ~- .
<br />"
<br />
<br />"':~;l""""_'"
<br />. ":~?=<\,
<br />. 'i,'Y
<br />"it: '~"
<br />:t:,3~~:~;~... .
<br />
<br /><<~:i'
<br />
<br />r; :~;~~._.
<br />~ ','
<br />
<br />.,\'...
<br />o)~: I
<br />.',.
<br />
<br />"t;'\
<br />
<br /><.::,"'.'-
<br />
<br />~".!":,,:
<br />
<br />.'(.',1,
<br />,::i~f~;~>::' . -f, .'
<br />.{ ',i.'
<br />
<br />',,1 '"~> .;.\
<br />
<br />I"
<br />.,' " ~,
<br />
<br />I 'it "
<br />
<br />~';.'
<br />f'!l.;
<br />
<br />I';'"'
<br />: ;\;
<br />'';;',
<br />
<br />~,".l
<br />
<br />. .....f......'
<br />
<br />,\,','
<br />':.~
<br />
<br />.......
<br />
<br />'t.'
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />.',
<br />
<br />,'t "'.
<br />.. .f~;'{~ '.
<br />
<br />,';'
<br />l.~>~\ '
<br />
<br />".
<br />
<br />{:~~~ ,";{:
<br />
<br />'.J,~
<br />
<br />J,~ ;+~"
<br />
<br />, ; ~-~.
<br />
<br />'.
<br />.'!
<br />
<br />case, it concludes that the authority does not re~t 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 appropri~tions for the purpose of protect-
<br />
<br />.
<br />ing the natural environment. It is also interesting to note
<br />
<br />that the act herein challenged was cited with approval by the
<br />Supreme Court in Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dis-
<br />trict v. Shelton Far~, 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 Band Ditch, 6
<br />Colo. 443 (1882). The Court is' unaware of any case wherein
<br />
<br />the Supreme Court has stated that the word "divert" in the con-
<br />
<br />stitutional sense mandates a specific physical act but must
<br />conclude, as did the Idaho Supreme Court in Dept. of Parks v.
<br />Idaho Dept. of Water Administration, 96 Idaho 440, 530, P. 2d
<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 />
<br />ficial purposes. The Court concludes that the amount of bene-
<br />ficial use is the measure of a water right,not the diversion.
<br />People ex reI. Park Reservoir v. Ilinderlider, 98 Colo. 505
<br />(1936). It also concludes that a physical diversion is not
<br />
<br />required to obtain a water right. Larimer County Reservoir Co.
<br />v. Luthe, a Colo. 614 (1886); Thomas U. Guiraud, 6 Colo. 530
<br />
<br />(1883); Droad Run Inv. Co. v. Duel & Snyder, 47 Colo. 573 t191g);
<br />
<br />
<br />Town of Genoa v. Westfall, ~41 Colo., ~3~,' , (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 />.1,'"
<br />
<br />'- 9 .,
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />
|