Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />"The right to divert the unappropriated <br />waters of any natural stream shall never <br />be denied. II <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />They also rely on Bond v. Twin Lakes Res. and Canal Co., 496 P2d <br />311 (Colo. 1972) and Hardesty Res., Canal and Land Co. v. Arkansas <br />Valley Su~ar Beet and Irr. Land Co., 277 P.763 (Colo. 1929). <br />The Court believed that the language of Sec. 148-21-20(3) which <br />provides: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />" All persons interested shall be <br />permitted to participate in the hearing." <br />(Emphasis supplied) <br /> <br />should be broadly construed, and that the interests of Justice. <br /> <br />dictated. that objectors should be permitted to be heard, and <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />therefore denied applicants' Motion to. Dismiss the statements <br />of opposition. The Court particularly believes this to be true <br />when withdrawal of water from wells may have a delayed effect on <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />existing surface rights, as a different problem is presented to <br />water administration officials than in the case of a junior <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />surface appropriator whose diversions out of priority are readily <br /> <br />detectible. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />2. Applicants have vigorously and consistently maintained <br />that they are entitled to decrees for the use of the 14 irrigation <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />wells upon the Preisser land upon'proof that the date of initiation"" <br />of appropriation, reasonable diligence in applying the water to <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />irrigation of the Preisser land and proof of the capacity of the <br />wells, without the necessity of proving the availability of <br />water. Applicants presented their evidence in support of the <br />availability of water after expressly reserving their position. <br />Similarly, a continuing objection was preserved to the admissibility <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />of evidence by o~jCctor5 to ShOH the non-availability of water <br />O~ injury to holde~5 of senior decrees. In view of the Cou~tls <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />finding that there is water available for approprlationJ it 1s <br />unnecessary to rule on these matte~s. ~ RQ~~~ ;~ the findinv.s. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />..t-r.... ~c::t..erm~ni:il,.lUll U1 t.:ne fact t~at water 15 ava~J.d[)l~ tv~ cq.J}'J. u- <br /> <br />p.ria~~t." I.;. 1Ud.l..h: t:::d.~.d~l' uy I"oe ~ssuance of the well pel,II;......, :"'J <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />t-........ C::r~ toe r:"e,.111t:::t:::J. . <br />