PERMFILE117664 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s ~~..°__"~_ _ =mss k._ Mr, Chips Barry (.,~(; 1 ~~ ~~i9 August 9, 1979 Page Two ~,~ .. ~eie. Gep;. n; ld~t~i,ai F~ao±rrces mining operations. Cotter's position in this regard is that the Colorado Revised Statutes specifically exclude from the definition of a well any excavation made for the purpose of obtaining minerals, In that context mines are not "wells" and miners do not require licensing as well drillers. Discussion The reasons which substantiate these conclusions are as follows: A. Compliance with State Water Law In Colorado, water rights are acquired by taking water and applying it to beneficial uses, entirely in the absence of governmental intervention. Such rights exist and may be protected without prior judicial declarations of the extent thereof and without the need to seek or obtain an adjudication therefor. In The Cresson Consolidated Gold Mining and Milling Co., et al. v, J. E. Whitten, et al, the Colorado Suareme Court stated: "The right to the use'of water accrues by virtue of acts in putting the water to a beneficial use or in producing and developing nontributary water. An adjudication only confirms what has already been accomplished." Accordingly, Cotter will acquire a vested right to use the water encountered in its mining operation at the time that water is actually used. The water which will seep through the pit wall originates as isolated, perched water bodies. In addition, the amounts encountered are essentially de- minimis, and represent only a one-time use of each source as each small body of water is encountered. Moreover, due to the developed nature of3this water, Cotter will have the prior right to its use. 1 Archuleta v. Boulder, 118 Colo. 43, 1972 P,2d 891 (1948). 2 The Cresson Consolidated Gold Mining and Milling Co., et al. v. J. E. Whitten et al., 139 Colo. 273, 338 P.2d 3 Section 34-50-106, C.R.S. 1973; Ripley v. Park Center Land & Water Co., 40 Colo. 129, 90 P. 75; see also § 37-82-102, C.R.S. 1973.