Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the only realistic alternative in some <br />situations for an instream flow protection <br />strategy; diligence litigation does not offer a <br />satisfactory forum for water development <br />planning. <br />III. A Theory for a Conditional Water Rights Market in <br />Colorado <br />A. Conditional water rights are vested property <br />rights under Colorado law. C.R.S. Section 37- <br />92-305(3); Mooneyv. Kuiper, .573 P2d 538, 539 <br />(Colo. 1978); Rocky Mountain Power Company v. <br />White River Electric Association. 376 P2d 158, <br />162 (Colo. 1962). <br />B. Conditional water rights are also changeable <br />property rights. <br />1. The change of the proposed point of <br />diversion or use of a conditional water <br />right pOses a fundamental policy question. <br />a. The continuation~f a "fixed and <br />definite purpose" to carry out the <br />original intent or plan for beneficial <br />water use is an accepted diligence <br />standard. Denver v. Northern Colorado <br />Water Conservancy Dislrict, 276 P2d <br />992, 999 (Colo. 1954). But a change in <br />a conditional water right may imply a <br /> <br />10 <br />