WSPC06127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001003 denoe, prove that the water thus added was produoed and contributed by him, and that, if not interfered with and left tci !'lov, in accordance with natural laws, it would not have reached the stream." In a late case. leadville June Develop- ment Co. v. Anderson, 91 Colo. 536, 17 P. (2d) 303, the court used the following language' "V/here a person by his own efforts has increased the flew of water in .a natural stream, he is entitled to the use of the ,vater to the extent of the increase. Platte Valley Irrigation Co. v. Buckers Irrigation, J.lilling and Improvement Co." 25 Colo. 77, 53 Pac. 334. Ripley v., Park Center Land and Water Co., 40 Colo. 129, 90 Pac. 75. Bieser v. Stoddard, 73 Colo. 554, 216 Pac.. 707. Comrie v. Sweet, 75 Cole. 199, 225 Pac. 214. But to entitle him to such use, he l!Ulst prove that the viater thus added to the stream was produced and con- tributed by him, and that, if not interfered with, but left to flow in aocord- ance with natural laws, it would not have reached the stream. and he IllUst prove this by clear and satisfactory evidence. Comrie v. Sweet, supra, p. 201". We call attention in this connection to the case of Bieser v. Stoddard. 73 Colo. 554, 216 Pac. 707, whel'e the matter of developed waters is discussed and a similar rule laid down. , In the present case, if the applicant is to be decreed these waters as developed waters, it is necessary to ask and angwer the question. Has the quantity of water in rIrights Springs Draw been increased by reason of the efforts of the petitioner? A part of the development work, namely the tile or drainage box system paralleling the county road, was put in by the county without any effort or expense on the part of petitioner; and under our holding in the ease of Farmers' Union Ditch Co. v. Rio Grande Canal Co., 37 Colo. 512. 86 Pac. 1042. such construction by the county, even though water is developed. does not give the applioant. whose efforts did not contribute to its development, any right therein superior to that of other appropriators on the stream. Vlhi1e the Farmers' Union Ditch Co. v. Rio Grande C. Co., supra, is conclusive against petitioner so far as the water developed through the drain constructed by the county is concerned. it is not neoessary to determine the matter on that ground alone. In that case we saidl "The claimants expended no money cr labor, in the way of driving the tunnel from which the water flows, nor have they purchased any rights which the persons driving the tunnel might have had therein. The water from the tunnel finds its way to the stream and has beoome a part thereof. It inures to the benefit of all taking water therei'rom. In this particular water the claimants have no interest or right Which will permit them to segregate a volume of water equal to that !'lowing frOm the tunnel, even if it be an actual increase, and assert an exclusive right thereto as against others diverting water from the stream. La Jara Creamery & Live Stock Association v. Hansen, 35 Colo. 105." (3) The uncontroverted evidence in this case is that the tile drain para- lleling the road vras oonstructed by the county to interoept waters before they drained into the road. The statement of facts as to the topography of the country shows conclusively that the water from the Dunham land, if not intercepted by the two mentioned drains, viou1d ultimately have found its way into the ohannel of Wright's draw. The trial judge recognized this natural law of gravitation, of which all courts take judicial notice, when he said, in response to an offer of the respondents to prove by the witness Elliott that the waters of the swamp lands drained by the two systems would ultimately find their way into vrright's draw, "I think that is apparently true exoept as to the portion allowed for eva- -4..