| OCR Text |
Show 472 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES Although the early legislation related to the use of water for irrigation only, an amendment in 1903 extended it to "any beneficial purpose other than irrigation. Adjudication and Limitation Act of 1919.169 -All claimants of water rights on file in the office of the State Engineer170 not adjudicated or in process of adjudication were required by this 1919 statute to file supplemental statements of their claims with the State Engineer by January 1, 1921171-subsequently extended to January 1, 1922172-in default of which their claims would be conclusively presumed to have been abandoned, and hence canceled.173 However, the Colorado Supreme Court held that "defendant's failure to comply with the provisions of the 1919 act by filing a supplemental statement as therein provided did not amount to abandonment or in any wise invalidated [sic] its appropriation."174 In any general adjudication175 of rights to the use of water for irrigation and other beneficial purposes in any water district, the court was required to command the State Engineer to certify to the court a complete list of his filings not canceled or submitted for adjudication. Provision was made for recording transfers of claims in the State Engineer's office.176 Conditional decrees were provided for.177 After notice of adjudication proceedings was given (following receipt of the list from the State Engineer) each claimant for appropriation of water in the water district, whether the appropriation was wholly or partially completed, had to appear and file his statement of claim and offer proof, the manner of presentation being the same whether the appropriation was only partially completed or was perfected. If proof of partial completion was satisfactory to the court, a conditional decree was issued, conditioned upon application of the water to beneficial use within a reasonable time thereafter. The final decree in a subsequent proceeding to fix 168Colo. Laws 1903, ch. 30. 169Colo. Laws 1919, ch. 148, Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-10-1 et seq. (1963). 170 These filings were made pursuant to an earlier version of Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-4-1 (1963). 171 Id. § 148-10-1. ll2Id. § 148-10-3. 173/J. § 148-10-2. 174Archuleta v. Boulder & Weld County Ditch Co., 118 Colo. 43,192 Pac. (2d) 891, 896 (1948). The court, inter alia, indicated that this provision should be construed along with § 5 of the 1919 act which it is said provided "for adjudication of priorities where no filing whatever was made." 192 Pac. (2d) at 895. Section 5 of this act was incor- porated in Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-10-6 (1963). 175 This is discussed in the immediately succeeding subtopic. 176Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-10-4 (1963). 177Such decrees, which are discussed at the end of chapter 8, were recognized by the courts in earlier times. Conley v. Dyer, 43 Colo. 22, 24-25, 95 Pac. 304 (1908); Drach v. kola, 48 Colo. 134, 141-145, 109 Pac. 748 (1910). Conditional decrees were granted by the courts prior to legislation on the subject. Taussig v. Moffat Tunnel Water & Dev. Co., 106 Colo. 384, 388,106 Pac. (2d) 363 (1940). |
