Laserfiche WebLink
<br />As of late 1984, groundwater law in Colorado can be <br /> <br />summar1zed as follows. <br /> <br />o Groundwater that has a s1gn1f1cant effect on the waters <br />of a stream 1s cons1dered tr1butary and 1s managed lHe /- <br />the water 1n a stream, except that a well perm1t from <br />the State Eng1neer 1s requ1red. <br /> <br />o Nontr1butary water comes under the spec1al prov1s10ns <br />of the 1965 Groundwater Management Act 1f a des1gnated <br />groundwater bas1n has been establ1shed, 'n wh1ch case a <br />mod1f1ed form of appropr1at1on appl1es under the <br />superv1s1on of the Groundwater Comm1ss1on and, ln most <br />cases, a local groundwater management d1str1ct. <br /> <br />o Nontr'butary groundwater outs'de deslgnated bas1ns may <br />be used 1f the overly1ng landowner or someone w1th the <br />landowner's consent obta1ns a perm1t from the state <br />Eng1neer. Water may not be w1thdrawn at a rate that <br />would deplete the water underly1ng the landowner's land <br />1n less than 100 years. Another 11m1tat1on ls that the <br />perm1ttee may not cause -mater1al lnjury. to someone <br />el se. <br /> <br />C. The Huston Case. <br /> <br />Many Coloradans recogn1ze the uncerta1nty 1n nontr1butary <br />groundwater law. References to uappropr1at1on- 1n S.B. 213 led <br />some to argue that the legls1ature 1ntended to make <br />nontr1butary groundwater subject to the doctr1ne of prior <br />appropr1at10n. Selz1ng on this argument, John Huston and a <br />number of other cla1mants attempted to appropriate much of the <br />nontrlbutary groundwater 1n the state. <br /> <br />-6- <br />