| OCR Text |
Show 698 GROUND WATER RIGHTS IN SELECTED STATES A number of controversies in this area have involved attempts to divert seepage and waste waters from irrigation while flowing to a stream in which appropriative rights have been established. The courts have held that such seepage and waste waters belong to the stream into which they would flow if not intercepted by artificial devices.183 The courts have applied the same rule to rights to use return waters from percolations from natural sources as to percolations from artificial sources. Legislation in 1957 and 1965 Ground water legislation enacted in 1957184 has been described in part by the Colorado Supreme Court as providing: [T] he Ground Water Commission may declare a given area to be a "tentatively critical ground water district" and once an area has been declared within such designation it "shall thereupon become subject to the regulations prescribed in this Article." The regula- tions are that after such designation no new wells can be dug, or the water drawn from existing wells be increased unless the user shall make application in writing to the state engineer for permission to do so and the application be approved. * * * [Section 147-19-10] is the only section in which the legislation has authorized participation by the state engineer in its administration. * * * * * * * * * * [T] he obvious intent is that nothing be done in respect to waste from existing wells.185 This legislation, which was applicable to all ground waters but was repealed in 1965, is discussed later in regard to nontributary waters.186 Legislation enacted in 1965 provided: The state engineer * * * shall execute and administer the laws of the state relative to the distribution of the surface waters of the state including the underground waters tributary thereto in accordance with the right of priority of appropriation, and he shall adopt such rules and regulations and issue such orders as are necessary for the performance of the foregoing duties.187 183See Comstock v. Ramsey, 55 Colo. 244, 133 Pac. 1107 (1913). 184Colo. Laws 1957, ch. 289, p. 863, Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-1 et seq. (1963), repealed, Laws 1965, ch. 319, § 1, p. 1246. 1S5Whitten v. Coit, 153 Colo. 157, 385 Pac. (2d) 131, 139 (1963). 186 See the discussion at notes 207-209 infra. 187Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-11-22(1) (Supp. 1965). The legislation also provided, among other things, that in regulating wells tributary to surface streams, the State Engineer, through the Attorney General, could apply for injunctive relief when necessary to prevent a diversion of tributary percolating water from injuring the vested rights of prior appropriators. Id. § 148-11-22(2). |
