WSP00020

• File Number: 8276.130
• Description: Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 6/10/1985
• Title: Formal Organizations for Operation of Laterals In the Grand Valley Unit of the Colorado Basin Salinity Control Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

("..I
["-
r-.
c

.

.

Cl

either side to operate and maintain it properly. Arthur

a

Irrigation Co. v Strayer, 50 Colo. 371, 115 P. 724 (cited with

approval on such point in Wright v Horse Creek Ranches, 659 P.2d

705 (Colo. App. 1982)); Shrull v Rapasardi, 33 Colo. App. 148, 517

P.2d 860 (Colo. App. 1973) (involving an easement for ditch

created by reservation in deed).

Statements are frequently found in decisions (in Colorado as

well as elsewhere) that the owner of an easement or dominant

estate may do whatever is reasonably necessary to permit full use

and enjoyment of the easement, including the exercise of rights of

ingress and egress for maintenance, operation, and repair.

However, exercise of such appurtenant rights may not expand the

scope or extent of the easement. See, e.g. Osborn & Caywood Ditch

Co. v Green, 673 P.2d 380 (Colo. App. 1983).

Because the existing Laterals consist of surface ditches as

small as a few feet wide and deep, because most of the easements

have been acquired by prescription, and in view cf the fact that

the new laterals will consist of pipelines installed in trenches

excavated to a depth of six or more feet, the question arises as

to whether the owners of the present laterals have the power to

grant a right of way legally sufficient to allow construction and

operation of the pipeline laterals.

Limi tation on the extent or scope of an easerr,ent, as discussed

above, is subject to the legal doctrine of "normal evolution." An

example of application of such doctrine is found in Hayes v City
of Loveland, 651 P.2d 466 (Colo. App. 1982), in ~TIich the owner

-10-