WSPC06127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. " 001002 There have been numerous general adjudications of water priorities in water district No. 60 in whioh the Cless ditch is located. General adjudication decrees were entered in 1897, 1911, 1914, 1916. 1920, 1929 and 1933. Petitioner claimed a right by virtue of an alleged appropriation of April 1, 1909, bu-t in none of the numerous adjudication prooeedings did he or his predecessors in interest appear and set forth their claims to the water, priority of right to the use of which is nOVl sought to be adjudicated. In 1897 in a, general adjudioation the Moreland ditoh, now ~nled by Dalpez,'was deoreed priorities 6, 10, 17. 20 and 22, all based on appropriations prior to that date out of the waters of 1'1rights Springs Draw. The findings of the referee in that adjudioation pro- oeeding, on whioh the oourt's deoree was based, oontained the followingl "That said ditch (the Llorelend ditch) derives its supply of water from the waste, seepage and spring water arising in and flOVling down 1l1rights Springs Draw." (1) Respondents contend that the findings of the referee and deoree of the oourt based thereon in the adjudication prooeedings of 1897 are res judicata as to the souroe of the water supply of the More1end ditoh. In those proceedings the court found that the source of supply of the Moreland ditch came from waste, springs, and seepage in and flowing down Wrights Springs Draw. ,lith the res- pondents' oontention that suoh determination is res judicata as against the pet- itioner, we are in accord. Section 1755, C. L. 1921. Which Was in force at all times during the adjudications hereinabove mentioned, among other require- ments, specifiesl That a claimant shall set forth "the name of the natural stream from whioh suoh ditch, canal or reservoir <!rans its supply of water." Section 1760. C. L. 1921, was in foroe when all of the adjudioations referred to above were made, end providesl That on the statement filed and testimony taken pursuant thereto. the oourt "shall asoertain and find from suoh evidence, as near as may be, the date of the oommenoement of suoh ditch, canal or reservoir, together with the original size and carrying capaoity thereof as originally constructed, * * * and make and oause to be entered a deoree determining and establishing the several priori ties of right, by appropr iation of water, of the several ditches. oanals and reservoirs in suoh water district, * * *" It seems olear that the statutes contemplate that the souroe of supply shall be determined. In fe.ot suoh a determination is an indispensable prerequisite to the determination of priorities, for the term priority connotes two appropriations from the same souroe of supply, and if a deoree were not res judioata as to ihe souroe of supply of a ditoh, neither could it be res judioata as to the priority of that ditoh as related to other ditohes drawing upon the same souroe of supply. (2) Respondents' second oontention is that the evidenoe olearly shows that the waters in question are one of the sources of supply of the stream in water district No. 60, and as suoh are not available for an independent adjudioation as developed waters. ',ihat oonstitutes artifioially developed water has been olearly defined by the decisions of this court. 1'1e held in the case of Comrie v. sweet, 75 Colo. 199, 225 Pac. 2141" That one who artifioially develops or produoes water and adds or turns the same into a natural stream, whioh water would not in due oourse otherwise have reaohed the stream on the surface or in the underlying sands. _y acquire a right thereto superior to the adjudicated rights of earlier appropriators of the natural waters of the stream only, may 'be oonceded. When, however, one makes suoh a olaim he should, by olear and satisfaotory evi- -3-