WSP07099 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\:' q~83 , ico ,e rd r- ly .".- K. ~ed States v. Denver, Col~do Suprene Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100; Arizona v. California, sutra; In re Application for Water Ri~hts 0 the United States of America, Colorado Water Division No.7, No. W-1120. Estoppel -- The changing patterns of estoppel against the government in cases involving public land issues has exerted a growing influence on reserved right adjudications. 1. Estoppel has been used against the government's assertion of reserved rights, United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court, No. 79 SA 99 and 100, as well as in its favor. Cappaert, ;~~ra. See generally United States v. Ruby Co., F.2c 697, 703-5 (9th Cir., 1978) cere den. U.S. (June 4, 1979). 2. State courts appear more prone to findinr. the United States estopped from claiming reserved rights. United States v. Denver, Coloreco Supreme Court, !los. 79 SA 99 ap.d 100. 3. Although the courts have recognized estoppel in public land cases, the trend has been to maintain a high standard as a basis for its invocation. Ruby, suora, Cappaer~, supra. But see New Mexico, supra, and its consid~ration of the "equities" of reserved rights. Are reserved ri hts 'unior onl' to orior ro erly per ecte water rlg ts, or are t ey Junlor to a T prior appropriations of water, whether adjudicated or not? United States v. Denver, Colorado Suprene Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100. 1. Would the result be different in jurisdictions following a permit system as opposed to an adjudication system such as Colorado. M. 1. Substantive changez in use without loss of priority may be permissible, Colville, supra. N. Are reserved ri hts, once ad'udicated sub'ect to state a mlnlstratlon. Unlte States v. enver, Colorado Supreme Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100; McCarran Amendment, (~~ra; Rank v. (Krug) United States, 372 U.S.609 nlJ). 24-5