OCR Text |
Show COLORADO 159 of a tabulation is to be considered a general adjudication proceeding, although it is in addition to and not in lieu of the procedures estab- lished for adjudication of individual, new appropriations described below in section 3.1, "Method of Acquiring Eights." 39 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts a. Rule of Priority The basic rule set forth in the constitution is that between com- peting users of water priority of appropriation gives the better right.40 Consequently, in time of shortage of supply the uses of per- sons whose appropriations are junior in date of initiation are cur- tailed to make water available to those whose appropriations are senior in time, and therefore, prior to right. The State officials who are charged with administration and dis- tribution of water-the State engineer, the division engineers, and the water commissioners of their staffs-are governed by the priori- ties for water rights established by judicial decrees entered in court adjudication proceedings for the determination of water rights.41 Until 1969, separate adjudication proceedings were conducted for each of the 70 irrigation districts of the State. Proceedings called supplemental adjudications were held in a district whenever a water user desiring an adjudication of a new appropriation petitioned the district court for the county within his irrigation district having jurisdiction. After a petition was filed, the proceedings were open to other users in the district to adjudicate any claims for new rights that had arisen since the completion of the last, previous adjudication in the district. Supplemental adjudications of this nature continued until all such claims were heard and adjudicated. Thereupon the proceedings were closed until such future time as a new petition for supplemental adjudication might be filed. In this manner, adjudi- cations occurred in each district intermittently, usually at intervals of one or more decades and lasting, once begun, for several years.42 Claims for water rights were identified by and adjudicated according to their actual historical dates of initiation, but no priority could be awarded in any supplemental adjudication senior to any priority awarded in any previous adjudication for the same district.43 In the 1969 Water Eight Determination and Administration Act44 the Colorado General Assembly changed the procedures for adjudi- cating water rights. A water clerk and a water judge were named for each of the seven water divisions.45 Water referees were ap- pointed by the water judges to make investigations and initial rul- ings.46 Any person who wishes a determination of a water right, conditioned water right, change of water right, plan of augmentation, or biennial finding of reasonable diligence in perfecting a condi- s»Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-21-28-(2) (k) (supp. 1969). *°Colo. Const., art. XVI, sec. 6. «Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-21-17(3) (supp. 1969). *2Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sees. 148-9-1 et seq. (1963). 43 Hardesty Res. & Canal Go. v. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet Go., 85 Colo. 555, 277 Pac. 763 (1929) ; see also, Luis Coppa & Son v. Kuiper, 467 P. 2d 273 (Colo. 1970). "Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sees. 148-21-1 to 148-21-45 <supp. 1969). 46 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sees. 148-21-10, 148-21-11 (supp. 1969). «Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-21-10(4) (supp. 1969). |