My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ISFAPP00648
CWCB
>
Instream Flow Appropriations
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
ISFAPP00648
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2016 3:37:09 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 10:19:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Instream Flow Appropriations
Case Number
75W2720
Stream Name
Crystal River
Watershed
Crystal River
Water Division
5
Water District
38
County
Garfield
Instream Flow App - Doc Type
Final Decree/Stipulations
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I' <br /> <br />'\': <br />I "h . ~ :. <br />~~::~~:.:" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />',' <br /> <br />., " <br /> <br />"j". <br /> <br />.-t <br /> <br />", ~,..,. " <br /> <br />'~'}", .' <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Sinilarly, tho Court in Thomas v. Guir,aud, supra, <br />, <br />recognizeJ th~t 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 deSigne~ and the method of <br />diverting or carrying the same,or making such <br />application, is inunaterial." (Emphasis supplied.) <br /> <br />.:~ :~~~" <br /> <br />!.!!. at 533. <br />More rece.!Jtly, 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" roprlator <br />nten 5 to use t e water or a ene ~c a1 purpose <br />and actually applies them to that use." (Emphasis <br />supplied. ) <br /> <br />!.!!. at 547. <br /> <br />The Guiraud, Larimer, and ~ cases, supra, differ <br /> <br />from the present action in that these cases were primarily con- <br /> <br />earned with whether natural methods of diversi.on, such as <br /> <br />natural depressions and river overflO'."', may lawfully be "sed to <br /> <br />appropriate water. The objectors' claim, on the ot!H::r hand, is <br /> <br />that none of the claimed water will be diverted at all. ~on~- <br /> <br />theless, the language set forth in the above cases is suffi- <br /> <br />ciently broad to support a claim for water where nn diversion <br />is contemplated, provided that the water is put to honeficial <br /> <br />use. <br /> <br />It is significant that most of the rolor~do C~3e5 <br />which have held that an actual diversion is re<]'uired, ,no ,'ases <br /> <br />which involve the appropriation of water for municipal and i:ri- <br />gation purposes, e.g., Northern Colo~ado, supra; Board of County <br />Conunissioners v. Rocky ~lountain Water Companr, 102 Colo. 351 <br />(193C). For obvious reasons, such appropriations nearly ah.:a:ts <br /> <br />require the actual ~iversion of water from the nn~~ral s~rearr. <br /> <br />bed t.o the site whare the water will be applied to a beneficial <br /> <br />use. On thu other hand, instream uses of water are clearly <br /> <br />not dependent upon actual diversion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.