| OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 473 a quantity of water was not to exceed the maximum fixed in the conditional decree. In this way, rights of partially completed appropriations are safe- guarded pending completion and final adjudication, or cancellation and forfeiture, as the case may be.178 Application of the principle of conditional decrees to the future require- ments of the City of Denver was before the Colorado Supreme Court in a 1954 case. The court said, among other things:179 We cannot hold that a city more than others is entitled to decree for water beyond its own needs. However, an appropriator has a reasonable time in which to effect his originally intended use as well as to complete his originally intended means of diversion, and when appropriations are sought by a growing city, regard should be given to its reasonably anticipated requirements. * * * Particularly is this true in considering claims for conditional decrees. In subsequent cases, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that one who had taken the first necessary step to initiate an appropriation of waters, and thereafter proceeded with diligence to finance and construct the works necessary to make an application of water to beneficial use, was entitled to a conditional decree defining his rights as of the date of the first step taken, regardless of compliance with the map and statement requirements pertaining to water appropriation.180 "It follows that one who is entitled to a conditional decree defining his rights to water for future application to use has a vested right which he may protect in case of any action by others which threaten to destroy or injure that right."181 Adjudication Act of 1943.182- Colorado was divided into 70 water districts,183 for purposes of adjudicating and administering water rights. Jurisdiction to adjudicate water rights pertaining to the same source within the 178Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § § 148-10-6 to 148-10-9 (1963). ^Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 384, 276 Pac. (2d) 992(1954). 180Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1484-1 et seq. (1963). 181 Rocky Mountain Power Co. v. White River Elec. Assn., 151 Colo. 45, 50, 376 Pac. (2d) 158, 162 (1962); Metropolitan Suburban Water Users Assn. v. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist., 148 Colo. 173, 365 Pac. (2d) 273, 286-287 (1961). 182Colo. Laws 1943, ch. 190, Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-9-1 et seq. (1963). 183Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-13-1 et seq. (1963). In addition to these districts, Colorado was also divided into seven irrigation divisions, six of which were headed by division engineers and the seventh by a Special Deputy State Engineer. Id. § § 148-12-1 et seq. and 148-11-10. The primary purpose of these divisions (comprising the principal drainage areas of the State) was the administrative distribution of water in accordance with the right of priority of appropriation as established by judicial decrees. Another use for these divisions is noted at note 193 infra. |
