My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00506
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:17:47 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:58:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
157
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 />11...it 1s clear that 1n proceedings pertain- <br />ing to an award of a conditional decree for <br />water, only ~wo questions are properly before <br />the court, and their determination will dictate <br />whether a conditional decree must follow. One <br />is whether an appropriation has been made by <br />the claimant and as of what date. The second <br />is whether the claimant has prosecuted his <br />claim of appropriation and the planning, <br />financing and construction of his enterprise <br />with reasonable diligence. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"An appropriation of water for beneficial use <br />thereof is effected as of the time the 'first <br />step' is taken to ~ecure it. Sieber v. Frink, <br />7 Colo. 148, 2 P. 901. We have held that what <br />constitutes the 'first step' is not the same in <br />every proposed diversion 'because the facts must <br />be taken into'consideration on an ad hoc'basis; <br />.... For example, in Taussi~ v. Mofrat~nnel <br />etc. Co., 106 Colo. 3B~, 106 P2d 363, >Ie <br />affirmed the granting of conditional decrees <br />on the basis that. appropriations were effected <br />by the conducting of surveys..." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In the instant case, applicants claim from the date a proposal <br /> <br />was made to the City of Colorado Springs to deliver water to it, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />This proposal was dated August 25, 1972. Appl~cants have spent <br />over $50,000 on acquiring rights of way for their proposed pipe- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />line, legal and engineering fees and installing special equipment <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />on their wells, all in less than a year; <br />In Four Corners, supra, the Supreme Court quoted from <br />MetroDolitan Suburban Water U~ers Associations, et al. v. <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District. et al., lqa Colo. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />173, 365 P2d 273, where the Court held: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />lIlt 1s inconceivable that any development <br />of the magnitude of that proposed ... <br />can be completed without the aid of con- <br />ditional decree statutes. Assurance of <br />a decree on completion of a project 1s a <br />prerequisite to complete financing, engi- <br />neering and construction..." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It is the~efore apparent that applicants have met ~he ~~0 require- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~ent~ of ?our Corne~sJ~' They have made thel~ 2ppropriation <br />and they have proceeded with diligence. They are" ~titled to <br /> <br />:heir conditional decrees for out of basin use for ~he purposes <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />requested. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.