| OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 471 in the early statutes is still reflected in the current legislation, including the predominantly judicial nature of the adjudication procedures.161 Original adjudication statutes.-The earliest statutory adjudication legisla- tion was enacted in 1879 and 1881.162 Concurrent legislation provided administrative machinery for dividing the waters of streams among the several diversion ditches according to their prior rights-in other words, for carrying out and enforcing decrees of adjudication issued by the courts pursuant to the contemporaneous legislation.163 The combination of these Colorado water rights adjudication and administration systems, first authorized in these years, was the pioneer in this field in the West.164 In the 1879 act, jurisdiction to hear, adjudicate, and settle all questions concerning priority of appropriations for irrigation purposes, from the same stream or its tributaries, was vested exclusively in the district courts. This act contained detailed procedures for making the adjudications. After 2 years' experience, which apparently was not wholly satisfactory, an entirely new act was passed in 1881 for the declared purpose of making further provisions for settling priorities of rights to the use of water for irrigation, in the district courts and supreme court, and for recording such priorities. The owner or claimant of an interest in any ditch, canal, or reservoir in any water district was required to file, on or before June 1, 1881, a sworn statement of such claim with the clerk of the district court that had jurisdiction. After that date any such owner or owners, by petition to the district court, could initiate proceedings for an adjudication of all priorities in a water district resulting in a decree determining and establishing them.16s The legislation also required the filing of a sworn statement with the county clerk within a certain period of time after commencement of work.166 But in construing somewhat similar provisions in subsequent legislation, the Colorado Supreme Court made it clear that the filing requirements were restricted to matters of evidence and that the lack thereof did not invalidate the appropriation.167 161 With respect to 1943 and earlier Colorado legislation, see Chilson, H., "Adjudication and Administration of Water Rights in the State of Colorado," Proa, Water Law Conference, Univ. of Tex. 80, 86 (1956). 162 Colo. Laws 1879, p. 94, Laws 1881, p. 142. 163 See the State summary for Colorado in the appendix. 164 An authoritative description of the origin and development of this combination of systems, including an appraisal of its effectiveness in operation, was contributed by an eminent Colorado water lawyer. Chilson, supra note 161. 165 Colo. Laws 1881, p. 142. 106Colo. Laws 1881, p. 161, § 2. This section of the 1881 act was held unconstitutional on the ground that the subject mater was not adequately stated in the title of the act. Lamar Canal Co. v. Amity Land & In. Co., 26 Colo. 370, 376-377, 58 Pac. 600 (1899). XblDe Haas v. Benesch, 116 Colo. 344, 351-352, 181 Pac. (2d) 453 (1947); Black v. Taylor, 128 Colo. 449, 457458, 264 Pac. (2d) 502 (1953). These cases are discussed in chapter 7 at note 584. See also Archuleta v. Boulder & Wild County Ditch Co., 118 Colo. 43,192 Pac. (2d) 891, 894-895 (1948). |
