WSP03499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1699 t , . . to. . . \.. . . . . . ~ t. . .,.. . . .. ~'.' ...... .. ~~. ~ "- 494 Colo. 7(4 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES tion. c..ppaert v. Uniud Slates, 426 U.S. 128, 138, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2069, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976); lee also United Slaw v. New Mexico, 438 V.S. 696, 699-700, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 3013-14, 57 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1978); DenveT 1, 656 P.2d I, 17 (1982). The im- plied federal right vests on the date of the reservation and is superior to the rights of future appropriators. Cappaert, 426 U.S. at 138, 96 S.Ct. at 2069. The United States Supreme Court has re<:ognU.ed implied fed. eral reserved water rights for varied feder- al reservations, including national forests monuments, parks, re<:reation areas wild~ life refuges, and Indian reservations: See, e.g., New Merico, 438 U.S. at 698, 98 S.Ct. at 3013 (the United States implicitly re- .erved appurtenant water necessary to ac- complish the purposes of the Gila National Forest reservation); CappaeTt v. United States, 426 U.S. at 139, 96 S.Ct. at 2070 (1952 presidential proclamation creating the Devil's Hole National Monument impli- edly reserved sufficient water to preserve the Devil's Hole pupfish); Colorado RiveT WateT Conse",ation Dist v. Unit.d States, 424 U.S. BOO, 805, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1240, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1975) (the reserved water rights of the Vnited States extend to Indian reservations, national parks, and na. tional forests); Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 601, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 1498, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1962) (the United States re- served water sufficient for the future re- quirements of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Havasu Lake Nation. al Wildlife Refuge, and the Gila National Forest). The reserved water rights doctrine mllSt be narrowly construed, lee Denver l, 656 P.2d at 26, and the right includes "only that amount of water necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, [and] no more," CapfKUTt v. United Slaw, 426 V.S. at HI, 96 S.Ct. at 2071. The applica. tion of the doctrine requires a careful ex. amination of the asserted water rights and the specific purposes for which the land was reserved and depends upon the conclu- sion that the purpose of the reservation .0 'Ibe above is not intended in any way to limit the sppUcalioo of the McCarron AmcndmcnL 43 u.s.e. f 666 (1976), 10 manen wbich arise in L would be entirely rkfeated withaut tho claimed water. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 81 700, 98 S.Ct. at 3014; Dent"'T 1, 656 P.2d II 19. (31 In contrast to the doctrine of p~ appropriation, which prevails in most of tho western states and recognizes only tho right to divert a quantified amount of "" ter at a specific location for a specific pur. pose, see ff 37-92-103(12), -1102, -1103, 15 C.RS. (1973 & 1986 Supp.); Green v. Clu:f fee Diteh Co., 150 Colo. 91, 371 P.2d 775 (1962), the federal doctrine of reserved .... ter rights vests the United States with a dormant and indefinite right that may not coincide with water uses sanctioned by atate law. Boles & Elliot., United Slates v, New Merico and the COUTSe of FerkraJ R.,.erved Water Rights, 51 V.Colo.L.Rev. 209, 213 (1980) (hereinafter Boles & Elliat). In a 1973 report to the President and Con. gress, the National Water Commissioo identified four characteristics of federal.... served water rights that are incampatibl. with the doctrine of prior appropriation: (I) the right may be created without diversian or beneficial use; (2) the priority of tho right dates from the time of the land with. drawal and not from the date of appropria. tion; (3) the right is not lost by nonuse: and (4) the measure of the right is quanti. fied only by the amount of water reasan. ably necessary to satisfy the purposes af the reservation. National Water Commis. sion, Water Policies fOT the FutuTe: Final Report to the President and to the Con. flT03S 464 (1973). Because the priority dste . of the reserved right relates back to the date of the reservation, reserved water rights threaten existing appropriators with divestment of their rights without compen. sation. Boles & Elliot., 51 V.Colo.L.Rev. at 213.' II. RESERVED WATER RIGHTS IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS During the last half of the nineteenth century, forests on the public lands were specific cases. See. e.g., United Slates v. Bell n4 P.2d 631 (1986). ' . ~r\o', and f ~('t dt'plt [ler: Cf'Tn po,e Dac (187 So.' ro!" for. riVI er 510. n, na re ea it; st f( L f } 1 1 I '~~"'~