Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board <br />November 21, 1977 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />industrial or mining uses. we cannot recommend <br />approval of the application until the applicant <br />provides additional information concerning his <br />water rights and the amount of water required in <br />his operation. <br />The concern expressed by the State Engineer's Office pro- <br />ceeds from his wish to prevent injury to the water rights of <br />others. This concern is also reflected in your Rule 6.2. <br />We trust that the foregoing statements provide sufficient <br />information for you to determine the lack of impact of <br />Cotter's proposed program upon the vested rights of others. <br />In addition to the question of injury, however, the State <br />Engineer's memorandum also referred to the need for water <br />rights. The next portion of our letter addresses that <br />point. <br />B. Compliance with State Water Law. <br />In Colorado, water rights are secured by <br />taking water and applying it to a beneficial use, entirely <br />in the absence of governmental intervention.l Accordingly, <br />under Cotter's proposed program, it will acquire a vested <br />right to use the water encountered in its mining operations <br />at the time that the water is actually used. Moreover, due <br />to the non-tribut~ry nature of this water, it has the prior <br />right to its use. In any event, the amounts encountered <br />are essentially de-minimis, and represent only a one-time <br />use of each source as each small body of water is encountered. <br />Accordingly, no need to administer this water will ever <br />arise. As a result, Cotter is now, and will continue to be, <br />in compliance with all applicable Colorado water laws govern- <br />ing the diversion and use of water, as well as those dealing <br />with injury to the vested water rights of others. <br />C. Conclusion. <br />As a result of all of the foregoing, the conclusion <br />is inescapable that the proposed mining and reclamation <br />Archuleta v. Boulder, 118 Colo. 43, 192 P.2d 891 (1948). <br />2§ 34-50-106 (C.R.S. 1973); <br />Ripley v. Park Center Land & Water Co., 40 Colo. 129, 90 <br />P. 75 (1907); see also § 37-82-102 C.R.S. 1973. <br />