Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />001083 <br /> <br />(4) The polioe pOIVer oannot transoend the Constitution nor be so exeroised <br />as to abrogate it. Smith v. Farr, 46 Colo. 364, 104 Pao. 401. <br /> <br />(5) In Colorado the dootrine of appropriation of water antedates the Con- <br />stitution. Coffin v. Left Hand Ditoh Co.. 6 Colo. 443. 446. Vlater rights are <br />property rights. Ft. Lyon Co. v. Rooky Ford Co., 79 Colo. 511, 515, 246 Pao. <br />781. The test of priority of right is benefioial use, not means of applioation. <br />Thomas v. Guiraud. 6 Colo. 530. The rule "First in time first in right" applies <br />as between users for the same purpose. Seo. 6, art. XVI. Colorado Constitution. <br />Junior appropriators IilaY not inf'l'inge the right of seniors. Comstook v. Rwnsay, <br />55 COlo. 244. 133 Pac. 1107. Junior appropriators for a use preferred under sai~ <br />seotion 6 may not ~re from senior appropriators for a subordinate use without <br />oompensation. Town of Sterling v. Pawnee D. E. Co. 42 Colo. 421. Pao. 339. <br /> <br />(6) Long usage oan neither repeal constitutional provisions nor justify thei., <br />inf'l'aotion. Leokenby v. Post Company. 65 Colo. 443. 176 Pao. 490. In oases of <br />doubt long ullage and praot;ioal oonstruotion by govermnental departments should <br />oontrol. Webster v. Luther. 163 U. S. 331, 16 Sup. ct. 963, 41 L. Ed. 179. <br /> <br />(7) Reoognition of olaims of property rights based upon an unoonstitutional <br />statute oan never ripen into a oontract. Great Plains Tl. Co. v. Lamar C. Co.. <br />31 COlo. 96. 71 Pao. 1119. <br /> <br />While the foregoing legal prinoiples should be borne in mind in oonsider- <br />ing the questions here presented, few of them are direotly involved and all are <br />so firmly established and so wholly unquestioned that we merely restate them <br />and cite a single authority in support of each. <br /> <br />(8-10) We oonsider first the suffioiency of the oomplaint. To determine <br />that, we must deoide whether a senior reservoir may tal:e. for storage. its full <br />appropriation when a portion of the water is needed by junior ditohes for direot <br />irrigation. Defendants say no. and stand upon seotion 1682, C. L. 15el, whioh <br />is seotion 38. page 106, of the General Irrigation Aot of 1879. The portion <br />thereof here in question readsl "Persons desirous to oonstruot and maintain <br />reservoirs. for the purpose of storing water, shall have the right to take from <br />s:ny of the natural strerons of the state and store elNay (only) s:ny unappropriated <br />water not (then) (thereafter) needed 1'01' immediate use for * II< * irrigating <br />purposes; · · .." The words in parenthesis are not in the aot. but most of the <br />arguments presented oontend for an interpretation whioh would require one or <br />another of them to be so written. <br /> <br />Plaintiff anBwers that the statute has been repealed. and that if not, it <br />is no defense unless, as defendants olaim should be done. the said word "there- <br />afterlt be read into it, in whioh oase. it says, it violates the Constitution, and <br />partioularly that portion of seotion 6. artiole X!lI. whioh stands as adopted <br />in 1876. and whioh readsl "The right to divert the unappropriated waters of <br />any natural streron to benefioial uses shall never be denied. Priority of e.ppro- <br />priation shall give the better right as bet<veen those using the water for the <br />SllJ11e purpose; but when the we.ters of any natural streron are not suffioient <br />for the service of all those desiring the use of the s!lJlle. those using the we.ter <br />for domestio purposes shall have the preferenoe over those olaiming for any other <br />purpose. and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have prefer- <br />ence over those using; the srone for manufaoturing purposes..n <br /> <br />-3- <br />