Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />compensation take? <br /> <br />To whom is the compensation paid? These <br /> <br />questions are addressed more fully below.51 <br /> <br />V. THE COLORADO APPROACH <br />I <br />A. General Colorado Doctrine ! <br />I <br />The seminal case of Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.52 involved <br /> <br />a diversion of water out of one drainage into an adjacent <br /> <br />watershed. <br /> <br />To the argument that such a diversion was unlawful <br /> <br />the Colorado Supreme Court repl ied: "In <br /> <br />I <br />the absence of <br />I <br />, <br />right to water <br /> <br />legisla- <br /> <br />tion to the contrary, we think that the <br /> <br />acqu ired <br /> <br />by priority of appropriation thereof is not in any way dependent <br />I , <br /> <br />upon the locus of its application to the beneficial use <br /> <br />designed."S3 <br /> <br />The Court went on to discuss <br /> <br />the numerous benefits <br />, <br />I <br />of water to locations <br />I <br /> <br />resulting from a rule allowing the movement <br /> <br />where it can be beneficially applied. <br /> <br />More recently, the Colorado Supreme Court again was pre- <br /> <br />sented with the question of the legality of out-of-basin diver- <br /> <br />sions--this time concerning a proposed project that would take <br /> <br /> <br />water from th~ Colorado River basin acros. the mountains to <br /> <br />Colorado Spr ings and Aurora. <br /> <br />In an unequivocal statement the <br /> <br />Court noted: <br /> <br />We find nothing in the Constitution <br />which even intimates that waters should be <br />retained for use in the watershed where <br /> <br />SlSee especially Section VI infra. <br /> <br /> <br />S26 Colo. 443 (1882). <br /> <br /> <br />53rd. at 449. <br /> <br />21 <br />