WSPC03990

• File Number: 8080
• Description: Section D General Interstate Litigation - Colorado Not a Party
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 1/1/3000
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Colorado Reports 56 Colorado 216 - 077-13-91429 - Number 6589 - City and County of Denver Vs Brown Et Al
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

001101

'.

Colo. 360, 54 Pac. 1020; Daum v. Conley. 27 Colo. 56, 59 Pac. 753; Gelwicks
v. Todd, 21" Cole. 495, 52 Pac. 788; Arnett v. Linhart. 21 Colo. 188. 40 Pao.
355.

.

The court awarded the city the right to only 41 statutory inohes of water
out of the first priority. and 255 statutory inches out of tre second priority.
and something over 1200 inches out of the third priority. This third pri-
ority, it seems to be conceded by all parties, is not of much value.

It is quite clear from the testimony that the use of water by tre
oity began with the year 1869, and perhaps earlier. In that year it oon-
tracted for one thousand dollars' worth of water I the next year, for forty-
five hundred dollars' worth; and thereafter. down to the time it oontracted
to purohase the ditch. for six hundred inches. then known as "square inches".
for whioh it paid several thousand dollars annually. This water was used
by the city principally for irrigating shade trees upon its streets.
and also. to some extent, to irrigate trees on lotso After the purchase of
the ditch by the city. we think the evidence discloses that its use of
water for the purpose mentioned was greatly inoreased, it reaching, soma
years, as I1D.lch as twonty-five hundred inches. Along in the nineties. the
oity began to use water for irrigating its parks and filling lakes in parks.
By the year 1899 it ceased to use the water upon the streets altogether,
and applied water only to the irrigation of its parks and filling the lakeso
From the eVidence, it appears that while the volume cf water used in filling
lakes and irrigating parks was not as great as had theretofore been applied
to the irrigation of trees on the streets, that it was the intention of the
'oity to increase its park area, and that the decreased use was temporary,
only. It also appears from the testimony that when the park area is in-
creased. as contemplated. the city will require all the water which it had
theretofore applied to the irrigation of trees upon its streets.

VIe think the evidence also establishes that from the time the city
began to use water for the purposes mentioned, its use was continuous each
year (but in what volume we shall not undertake to determine), until in
the nineties. its direct use was decreased. In the briefs for the city it
is asserted (and not denied by counsel for the appellees) that the trial
court ruled that consumers who were farmers and using the water for the
purposes of irrigating crops had a better right to the use of water than
the city had for irrigating trees for shade upon its streets, or the irri-
gation of its parks and the filling of lakes and reservoirs, and that.
therefore, the city's right to the use of water should be subordinated to
any and all olaims upon the part of consumers usinG water for the irrigation
of crops, and that this ruling resulted in reducing very materially the
volume of water to vlhich the city was. in fact, entitled out of the res-
pective priorities awarded its ditch. Irrigation means the application of
water for the purpose of nourishing plants. Vie think the application of
water to grow trees upon streets and to irrigate trees, shrubs, grasses
and other plant life usually grown in parks. constitutes the use of water
for irrigation just as much as the application of water to grail crops upon
farms. Both uses are for the purpose of nourishing useful plant life, and
therefore neither one is in any sense superior to the other, or entitled
to preference over the other. Tlhether the city Would be entitled to use
water to fill lakes in its parks in preference to individual contract con-

-9-