OCR Text |
Show PERCOLATING WATERS 639 under the doctrines of the Katz case and the numerous decisions clarifying or modifying it. Colorado In Colorado, the classic distinction between percolating ground waters and those in definite subterranean streams is not important. Rather, distinctions of great legal significance are found between ground waters which are tributary to a watercourse and those which are not53 and between ground waters in designated ground water basins and those outside such basins.54 Percolating ground waters tributary to surface streams are subject to appropriation, as are surface watercourses.55 The Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 includes a number of provisions for integrating the determination and administration of rights in surface watercourses and tributary ground waters.s6 Prior to passage of the 1965 Colorado Ground Water Management Act,57 ground water not tributary, to a stream was not subject to any theory of appropriation.58 Users could sink wells and make any reasonable use of the water thereby acquired.59 The court specifically declined to fully enunciate the doctrine to be followed with regard to these non-tributary waters, other than to reject the English rule of absolute ownership.60 The court declared that it need not decide whether it would follow "the California doctrine of reciprocal rights, * * * or whether we should extend one step further our Colorado doctrine of first in time, first in right * * *."61 The passage of the Colorado Ground Water Management Act appears to have materially altered the situation with respect to these waters. The act affirms prior appropriation with respect to "designated ground waters," although its policy is thaf prior appropriation should be modified to permit full economic development of these designated ground water resources.62 Desig- nated ground water is ground water found in a designated ground water basin, and (1) which is not available to and required for the fulfillment of decreed surface rights, or (2) is in areas not adjacent to a continuously flowing natural "See Whitten v. Coit, 153 Colo. 157, 385 Pac. (2d) 131 (1963). 54 See Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-1 et seq. (Supp. 1965). "See Whitten v. Coit, 153 Colo. 157, 385 Pac. (2d) 131 (1963); Black v. Taylor, 128 Colo. 440, 264 Pac. (2d) 502 (1953). 56Colo. Laws 1969, ch. 373, Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-21-1 et seq. (Supp. 1969). "Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-1 et seq. (Supp. 1965). 58 Whitten v. Coit, 153 Colo. 157, 385 Pac. (2d) 131 (1963), construing Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-1 et seq. (1963), the predecessor to the Colorado Ground Water Manage- ment Act. 59 Kelly, "Colorado Ground Water Act of 1957-Is Ground Water Property of the Public?" 31 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 165,171 (1959). 60Nevius v. Smith, 86 Colo. 178, 279 Pac. 44 (1929). 61Safranek v. Town ofLimon, 123 Colo. 330, 228 Pac. (2d) 975, 978 (1951). "Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-1 (Supp. 1965). |