OCR Text |
Show 708 GROUND WATER RIGHTS IN SELECTED STATES If the Commission finds no grounds for denial of the application, a conditional permit shall be issued in whole or in part, subject to such reasonable conditions and limitations as the Commission may specify. After the permittee provides evidence and the Commission finds that the water has been put to beneficial use and that other terms of a conditional permit have been complied with, the Commission shall order the State Engineer to issue a final permit with such limitations and conditions as the Commission deems necessary to prevent waste and to protect other appropriators.217 The act, as amended in 1967, exempts "[W]ells used for ordinary household purposes, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the irrigation of home gardens and lawns, not exceeding fifty gallons per minute * * * unless otherwise specifically stated."218 Relative rights among users in the basin, including permittees and those exercising their rights prior to the effective date of the act, are governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation.219 The act includes procedures for determining their relative priorities. The Commission shall determine tentative priorities as soon as practicable after the establishment of a designated ground water basin Under the circumstances of a recent case, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the use of a so-called 3-mile test (said to have been developed for use in the Northern High Plains) in determining whether the proposed use of ground water would unreasonably impair existing water rights from the same source or create unreasonable waste. "Using that test, a circle with a three mile radius is drawn around the proposed well site. A rate of pumping is determined which would result in a 40% depletion of the available ground water in that area over a period of 25 years. If that rate of pumping is being exceeded by the existing wells within the circle, then the application for a permit to drill a new well may be denied." The court concluded that this test, including other factors considered in its application, "takes into account all of the considerations specified in the statute." The court denied the plaintiff's argument that the test was based on assumptions not present in the circumstances of this case. "We do not find that the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs expert is so conclusive in its effect that we can say that adherence to the three mile test by the court in this case was capricious and arbitrary. * * * * * * * " * * * Experts testifying for the commission stated that the three mile test is the best tool they presently have to work with, and that it will be refined as they continue to learn more about the area." Fundingsland v. Colorado Ground Water Comm'n, 171 Colo. 487, 468 Pac. (2d) 835, 836-838 (1970). This case also is discussed in note 210 supra. 217Otherwise, the conditional permit shall expire in 1 year, unless extended for a specified period for good cause. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-7 (Supp. 1965), amended in some other respects by Colo. Laws 1971, ch. 367, § 6, p. 1314. With respect to conditional water rights to use surface watercourses in Colorado, see the discussion at the end of chapter 8. 218Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-4 (Supp. 1967). 219Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-18-8 (Supp. 1965). |