WSP06274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001126 ~- . . These court proceedings do not create the appropriation. But they do determine in the nature of quiet title, the relative rank of the several contending appropriators based upon proof ,of facts, showing diligence or lack of it. Colorado courts say a "dog in the manger policy" will not be countenanced. Distinction between making appropriation of water and court wherein its relative priority may be determined It is to be borne in mind (which some do not realize) that there is a distinction between creation of an appropriation of water and the designation of the tribunal or court in which its relative priority will be determined. This priority of right is naturally a valuable property right in the appropriator. And while in the final analysis it is for the benefit of the actual user of the water under the Colorado system for orderly proce- dure to avoid multiplicity of litigants, it is the ditch company, not the stockholder or user, the city, not the householder, and here, the United States, not every user in the seven counties of the district, which present the claim in court for adjudica- tion of this valuable property right of relative priority. It is not unnatural that United States law requires trial of its property rights, here, its priority in a federal court, rather than in the state, or "local" courts, of so many West Slope water districts. In 1952 an act was being pressed in Congress, chiefly by Denver and Nevada interests, to make the United States water rights subject to being tried in local courts. It is known as the McCarran Act. It did not meet favor separately, but in the last few days of the session, its advocates got it tacked on to the omnibus appropriation bill, hence its veto was practically impossible. Chairman Harry Polk, of the National Reclamation -18- - ~