OCR Text |
Show 170 COLORADO water of, i.e., tributary to, a natural stream or as water not of, or tributary to, a natural stream. In general, water tributary to a nat- ural stream has been treated as water subject to appropriation.167 The status of water not tributary to a natural stream has been in doubt until recent times168 when the enactment of the 1965 Ground Water Management Act169 authorized the creation of "designated ground water" basins, within which designated ground water, by definition, would appear to include all water not tributary to any natural stream or at least not in practice a part of the source of sup- ply of appropriators from any natural stream.170 Designated ground water, too, is now administered according to a modified version of the appropriation doctrine under the 1965 act, and so it may be said generally that ground water in Colorado, like surface water, is subject to the law of appropriation. 4.1 Tributary Ground Water Tributary ground water includes what is sometimes called seep- age, underflow, or percolating water, if that water would eventually become a part of a natural stream.171 A natural stream's waters include water "in the unconsolidated alluvial aquifer of sand, gravel, and other sedimentary materials, and all other waters hydraulically connected thereto which can influence the rate or direction of move- ment of the water in that alluvial aquifer or natural stream."172 There is a presumption that water is tributary to a natural stream, although the presumption may be overcome.173 Tribuary ground water is subject to the 1969 Water Right Deter- mination and Administration Act.174 The 1969 act specifically recog- nized that previous and then existing laws had given inadequate attention to the development and use of underground waters of the State.175 In particular, surface water diversions and wells had usually been administered separately in the State. Few wells had been ad- judicated. Though most wells were relatively junior to surface appro- priations, little effort had been made to devise any plan to regulate their use even when their proliferation and use appeared to threaten interference with the flow of surface streams. The situation encour- aged investment in the development of agricultural economies based on wells of uncertain legal status even as conflicts between surface diverters and those well owners whose wells were nearest the surface point of diversion grew in intensity.176 The 1969 act declared it the policy of the State to integrate the appropriation, use, and adminis- tration of underground water with the use of surface water in such a way as to maximize the beneficial use of all the waters of the State.177 w> Colorado Springs v. Bender, 148 Colo. 458, 366 P. 2d 552 (1962); see generally, note, A Survey of Colorado Water Law, 47 Denver L,. J. 226, 307-339 (1970). 168 gee yphitten v. Ooit, 153 Colo. 157, 385 P. 2d 131 (1963) ; SafraneJe v. Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 228 P. 2d 975 (1951). 168 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sees. 148-18-1 to 38 (supp. 1965). ""Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-2(3) (supp. 1971). "i Safraneh v. Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 228 P. 2d 975 (1951) ; Nevius v. Smith, 86 Colo. 178, 279 Pac. 44 (1929). "2Colo. Rev. Stat .Ann., sec. 148-21-3(4) (supp. 1969). mSafranek v. Limon, 123 Colo. 123 Colo. 330, 228 P. 2d 975 (1951). 174 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sees. 148-21-1 to 45, as amended (supp. 1971). "5 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-21-2(2) (supp. 1969). "a See generally, Fellhauer v. People, 447 P. 2d 986 (Colo. 1968). i"Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-21-2(1) (supp. 1969). |