My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC05818
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
17000-17999
>
WSPC05818
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:03:06 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 5:31:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8064
Description
Federal Water Rights - Colorado Indian Negotiations
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
12/31/1992
Author
Various
Title
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement - Animas-La Plata
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />001541 <br /> <br />Over the years, the Supreme Court has typically applied <br /> <br />-~ <br /> <br />priority of appropriation in equitable apportionments of interstate <br /> <br />rivers, but priority of appropriation has not been the only rule <br /> <br />for determining the rights as between States. <br /> <br />In Nebraska v. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Wvominq, 325 U.S. 589, 618, (1945) the Supreme Court stated:. <br /> <br />Priority of appropriation is the guiding <br />principle. But physical and climatic <br />conditions, consumptive use of water in the <br />several sections of the river, the character <br />and rate of return flows, the extent of <br />established uses, the availability of storage <br />water, the practical fact of wasteful uses on <br />downstream areas, the damage to upstream areas <br />as compared to the benefits to the downstream <br />areas if a limitation is imposed on the former <br />-- these are all relevant facts. They are <br />merely an illustrative, not an exhaustive <br />catalog. They indicate the nature of the <br />problem of apportionment and the delicate <br />adjustment of interests which must be made. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />The court in equitable apportionment suits has never reduced junior <br /> <br />upstream existing uses by rigid application of priority of <br /> <br />appropriation. To the contrary, the tendency has been to protect <br /> <br />existing uses wherever possible. <br /> <br />Each of the earlier equitable <br /> <br />apportionment cases had a common thread -- namely, to protect <br /> <br />existing economies to the maximum extent possible. When that could <br /> <br />not be done through strict application of priorities, the supreme <br /> <br />Court has not hesitated to use equitable apportionment as a <br /> <br />flexible doctrine designed to secure a just and equitable <br /> <br />allocation. <br /> <br />See, Richard A. Simms "Equitable Apportionment <br /> <br />Priorities and New Uses" -- Natural Resources Journal, Spring 198~" <br /> <br />p. 549 et ~. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.