PROJ00506

• Contract/PO #: C153824
• Contractor Name: Preisser, Rodney J.
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 17
• County: Lincoln
• Bill Number: SPL
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

,

conflict, and the administrative tribunal, acting

of legislative authority in Sec. 148-18-36(2)
mined (1) that there will be no
and (2) there is unappropriated water

deter-

vested rights,

for withdrawal

I

from the proposed wells, and

finding can be substantiated

I

by hydrological and geolog
these findings 'he

Had he not made all of

I

have issued the well permits. These

findings were

made in 1965 when the original permits
were reaffirmed in 1972 when he permitted the
wells 7-14 and limited the total annual withdrawal

I

acre feet. (Exhibit 2).

I

3. Although Objectors opposed any appropriation to
applicants and sought an injunction against further use of their

I

wells by applicant., even. on their overlying land, it was apparent
throughout the trial that the chief reason for the appearance of
objectors arose from applicants'proposal to take water out of the
watershed. Having found that water is available for appropriation,

I

I

the Court cannot dictate where the water is to be used or put
conditions on its use outside the watershed. See City and Count v
of Denver v. Sheriff, 105 Colo. 193, 96 P2d 836 (1939), where

I

the Supreme Court said:

"It is the settled doctrine of this state
that geographical advantage does not apply
to water for beneficial use.1I

I

I

liThe restriction of such use as is attempted
by the decree here under consideration is
invalid and an invasion of vested rights.1I

I

Furthermore, the economic feasibility of a project for

which one seeks a conditional decree is not an appropriate matter

I

for this Court to consider. See Four Counties Water Us~rs

Association v. Colorado River Water" Conservation District, et-al.,

I

414 P2d 469 (Colo. 1966), where the Supreme Court said:

I