WSP01923 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. I . n~~"I~/\ . ~J ..,- ..,. '.# ,.. \] may not preempt "the development potential of water absent a demonstrated intent to put that water to beneficial use:' }g, at 684. Thus, under current law the priority date for a plan to reuse return flows should be based on development of that plan, not the date of the original appropriation. A concern presented by attempts to salvage water through the reduction of non- productive consumptive use, is the fact that this will be done in large part by either removing phreatophytic vegetation or depriving it of a water supply. A line of cases Cited by those urging caution in creating a right to salvaged water holds that developed water can not be produced by the eradication of phreatophytes. SECWCD v. Shelton Farms. Inc., 187 Colo. 181,529 P.2d 1321 (1974). Developed water is "new" water not previously part of the river system and is not administered within the priority system, i.e. it is not subject to curtailment by call. }g. Additional cases following Shelton Farms have held that elimination of non-phreatophytic vegetation also does not produce developed water. OiffeIl v. State, 690 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1984). Nor may one dry up a marshy area, thereby alleg~dly reducing natural consumptive use and claim a right to the saved water outside of the pri()rity system. RIA. Inc. v. Water Users Association. District 6, 690 P.2d 823 (Colo. 1984). After Shelton Farms the General Assembly also decided that a plan for augmentation could not "include the salvage of tributary waters by the eradication of phreatophytes:' Section 37-92- 103(9), C.RS. However, the General Assembly has allowed gravel pit operators to take an augmentation credit for the "historic natural depletion ... caused by the preexisting natural vegetative cover ... permanently replaced" in the process of mining and exposing the water table to the atmosphere. Section 37-92-305(12)(a), C.RS. This statute indicates that in some instances limited salvage is already allowed in Colorado. It should be noted that the above language allowing credit for preexisting vegetative cover in sand and gravel augmentation plans is being challenged in Central Colorado Water Conservancy Distri~t v. Danielson, Case No. 89CW170, Water Division No. 1. ':;; ,-! Salvage and saved water proposals submitted to the General Assembly do not involve claims for developed water, rather the saved or salvaged water would continue to be administered within the priority system. Both salvaged and saved water transfers also would be subject to the no injury rule, a further recognition that this water was and remains part of the tributary water system. Thus Shelton. Giffen, and B.!A do not directly apply to irrigation efficiency improvement projects. However, the Court in those cases did express concern for the environmental damage that may result if incentives are given for removing vegetation and drying up wetlands. Section 37-92-103(9), which prohibits "eradication" may be a obstacle to salvage plans because almost every transfer of water rights involves a plan for augmentation as the means of preventing injury to other rights. Often phreatophytes need not be directly, or "actively" eradicated (i.e. cut down and removed) to reduce consumptive use, rather water can be prevented from reaching their root zones by reducing the seepage which supplies their water needs. The result, death and loss of this type of vegetation, has been referred to as "passive" eradication. When phreatophyte loss follows seepage reductions, it is unsettled whether the courts will find that the legislature intended to prevent so called passive eradication and require water users to continue to provide a 16 ,~ .,1 --.i.. 11 -; :~ <',~' ~, i'~"";;j,.J.",,~,_,,_iud '""",,>>.,