|
<br />0" 1::; ,(~
<br />lJ \J \) "-
<br />
<br />- 3 -
<br />
<br />33.
<br />
<br />control process. 3/ I cannot say how effect ive this has been, but
<br />fit into both the court reference and statutory control systems.
<br />
<br />it does
<br />
<br />.)
<br />
<br />Systems of statutory appropriation in New Mexico, Kansas, Utah,
<br />Nevada, Oregon, and Washington are good sources of statutory control
<br />experience. In these states there has been steady adjustment from old
<br />rules of common law or reasonable une, to correlative rights and
<br />prescription in one State, and finally to controlled drilling and use under
<br />statutory and administrative appropriation methods. These states repre-
<br />sent three broad types of supply and use areas, however.
<br />
<br />In each state the geology is variable, sources of replenishment
<br />usually are feasible, supply short of need, and use largely of a depleting
<br />nature. To set out each act and discuss its strong and we2,k points of law
<br />and administration would take many pages. Furthermore, 1 think that
<br />there are new ideas worth considering which are f1e::ible to fit each local
<br />area, (some of which are in one or m ore of these acts and some are not)
<br />and stable enough to encourage sound investments. I think that in any
<br />area the resource should be developed and used according to capabilities,
<br />and treated according to need, as the basic policy of the law.
<br />
<br />Colorado has peculiar geologic, water supply, and water use
<br />factors to consider. The West Slope is markedly different from the East
<br />Slope. In a sense, Colorado straddles the continent-waterwise.
<br />
<br />The statutory experience just above referred to fits the West Slope
<br />fairly well. But the East Slope has large sheet-li'<e aquifers as well as
<br />localized groundwater bodies affected by streamflow. Both have snow
<br />storage and precipita~ion sources of repleni.shment and also depl8ting
<br />uses. Aside from Kansas, SOt'.~;h Da!;ota, and Texas, there hasn't been
<br />much experience of substantial length :)f time (25 years or more) that fits
<br />this Plains type of ground w::':er and surface wate", relationship. So I
<br />doubt if any of these states could fully serve uS a model of proven experience.
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />Furthermore, the disru:e over federal-stci e jurisdiction and
<br />ownership of water rescurce3, inc;, uding toe interstate r:l3nagement
<br />aspects, throws this whol", Fruhlem of r;roundwater management into
<br />confusion because part of C0lor8.do VlUJ in the Louisi,ana Purchase, part
<br />in the Texas purchase, part in "he cession from Mexico, and a small
<br />area was part of the speci::J.l treaty with Spai,n, a', 1 understand the history.
<br />All was public domain at one time, as far as Colo,,,&do is concerned, and
<br />title was in the United States, subject:o the t','1en existing and recognized
<br />rights. How much did the Unitec:l St:ltes grant away and how much did it
<br />retain? And how are the granti,ng instruments to be interpreted?
<br />
<br />3/ Cal. Water Code Ann., Cho l1369, Div. 2, Part 5 (1955).
<br />
|