Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001107 <br /> <br />STRICKWR v. C IT'{ OF COLOR.AOO S;-RnmS. <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />1. WATErr-RIGIITS..PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY,".The fundamental principle of our <br />system of water-rights is that priority in point of time gives superiorty <br />of right lllIlong appropriators for like benefipial purposes. <br /> <br />2. APPROPRIATIONS FitC!:.I TRIBUTARIES OF liAIN STREAI,~.--The rights of a prior <br />appropriator from a stream oannot be impaired by subsequent appropriations pf <br />water from its tributaries. <br /> <br />3. CHANGING POINT OF DIVERSION.--A prior appropriator of water from a strelllll <br />may ohe.nge the point of diversion and the place of use Without losing his pri- <br />ority, provided the rights of others are not injuriously affeoted by suoh <br />ohange. <br /> <br />4. SALE OF PRIORITY SEP.\RATE FliOl,; THE LAND.--! priority to the use of water for <br />irrigation is a property right, and may be sold and transferred separately from <br />the land in oonneotion with whioh the right ripened. <br /> <br />5. STATUS OF IRRIGATION PRIORITIES ANTEDATING COlISTITUTION.--Rights aoquired <br />to the use of water for irrigation, prior to the adoption of our state oonsti- <br />tution, oannot be taken by a oity for the domestio use of its inhabitants, <br />wi thout oompensation. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />6. CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.--The provisions of the oonstitution <br />operate prospeotively only, unless a contrary intention clearly appears from <br />the words employed. <br /> <br />ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELPASO COUNTY <br /> <br />THIS is an agreed case, submitted for deoision without suit under ohapter <br />24 of the oode. The seotion permitting the submission reads as follows I <br /> <br />"Parties to a question in difference whioh might be the subjeot of a oivil <br />aotion may, without action, agree upon a case containing the faots upon which <br />the controversy depends, and present a submission of the same to any court <br />whioh would have jurisdiction if an aotion had been brought, but it must appear <br />by affidavit that the oontroversy is real and the preoeedings in good faith <br />to determine the rights of the parties. The oourt shall thereupon hear and <br />determine the oase, and render the judgment thereon as if an aotion were <br />depending." Seo. 278, Code 1887. <br /> <br />The present oontroversy has referenoe to an attempted increase by the city <br />of Colorado Springs of its water supply, suoh inorease becoming neoessary on <br />- aocount of the growth of the city; the oity being about to purchase from the <br />owners of water-rights for agriculture such rights, tp the end that the water <br />may be diverted to the use of the oity. The plaintiff, a citizen and tax-payer <br />of the city, and the owner of a water-right for irrigation purposes upon the <br />Fountain oreek hereinafter mentioned, seeks to restrain the oity authorities <br />from its contelli'lated action. <br /> <br />-1- <br />