WSP07201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

30 June, HIO~ J.n'" The defendants appealed the case, and on November 27, 1961, the Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the judgment.ll Iii their review of the case, the Supreme Court recognized apparent inequities in the original decision and directed that further proceedings were needed to resolve several pertinent points. However, they held that the doctrine of prior appropriation was appli- cable, as did the district court. Their decision was guided chiefly by two le- gal principles. One states that the diverter " . . . is not entitled to command the whole or a substantial flow of the stream merely to facilitate his taking the fraction of the whole flow to which he is entitled. Schodde versus Twin Falls Land & Water Co., 224 U.S. 107, 119, 32 S.C. 470, 56L. Ed. 686. This principle applied to di- version of underflow or underground water means that priority of ap- propriation does not give a right to an inefficient means of diversion " The second principle states that " . . . a junior appropriator may not divert the water to which he is en- titled by any method or means the result of which will be to diminish or interfere with the right of a senior appropriator to full use of his ap- p ropriation. " The Supreme Court suggests that administrative agencies of government un- der authority of legislative action might better apply the principles of the case but this " . . . can not be a sufficient reason for failure of the judiciary to en- force property rights as protected by existing law." The Supreme Court instructed that the following must be done after such additional evidence as the litigants may desire has been presented: 1. The rate of flow of senior and junior appropriators whose rights are involved, together with the dates of priority of each appropriation, must be determined. 2. The elevation of water in the aquifer at which each junior appropriator must cease to divert water in order to meet the demands of a senior appropriator must be fixed. 3. In determining the facts mentioned (under 2), the conditions surround- ing the diversion by the senior appropriator must be examined to de- termine whether or not he has created a means of diversion from the aquifer that is reasonably adequate for the use to which he has histor- ically put the water of his appropriation. If adequate means for reaching a sufficient supply can be made available to the senior, whose present facilities for diversion fail when water table is lowered by acts of the junior appropriators, provision for such adequate means should be de- creed at the expense of the junior appropriators, it being unreasonable to require the senior to supply such means out of his own financial re- sources. This reasonable provision of the law recognizes the nature of underground aquifers is such that they sometimes have very great 11 Opinions of the Supreme Court of Colorado, Colorado Bar Assn., Denver, Colo., Case 19483, November 27, 1961.