| OCR Text |
172 COLORADO appropriation would unreasonably impair existing water rights from the source or would create unreasonable waste, it must deny the ap- plication.189 If the proposed appropriation will not unreasonably impair existing rights or create unreasonable waste, the Commission grants the permit subject to such reasonable conditions and limita- tions as the Commission may specify.190 In determining the effect of a proposed appropriation on existing rights, the Commission must consider the area and geologic conditions, the average annual yield and recharge rate of the supply, the priority and quantity of existing claims, the proposed method of use, and other matters appropriate to such questions.191 The Commission may formulate appropriate tests for determining what may constitute unreasonable lowering of the water level beyond reasonable economic limits of withdrawal or use. In one designated basin a 3-mile radius test by which the Commission denied new applications was upheld by the courts.192 There, pumping of wells within a 3-mile radius of a proposed well was already suf- ficient to deplete available water by 40 percent over 25 years' time. The court held that the Commission was justified in using the test in concluding there was no longer any unappropriated water avail- able. Although priority of claims within designated basins is deter- mined by priority of appropriation,193 the procedures for determin- ing priorities are different from those for determining the priority of claims for surface water appropriations and of appropriations of ground water tributary to a natural stream. Priorities of appropria- tion in designated basins are determined, after hearing, by the ground water commission.194 Appropriations based on actual taking and use of ground water before the effective date of the 1965 Ground Water Management Act are related back to the date of original use. Claims initiated after the effective date of the act are dated from the filing of an application with the commission.195 As explained above,196 the administration and enforcement of the Ground Water Management Act is placed in the ground water com- mission, locally formed management districts, and the State engineer, in each of whom are vested certain regulatory or administrative pow- ers and functions.197 Publications Available Institution for Water Resource Research: Natural Resources Center Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colo. 80521 303-491-6952 i89 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-6(4) (supp. 1971). 380 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-6(3) (supp. 1965). if* Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-6(5) (supp. 1965). 192 Fundingaland v. Colorado Ground Water Commission, 468 P. 2d 835 (Colo. 1970). «s Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-8(1) (supp. 1965). ]9*Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-8(3), (5) (supp. 1965); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-8(4) (supp. 1971). «5 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-8(1) (supp. 1965). 196 See note 68. 397 Powers of the State engineer are enumerated in Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., see. 148-18-9 (supp. 1965). Powers of the ground water commission are enumerated In Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-10 (supp. 1965). Functions of management districts are detailed in Colo. Stat. Ann., sec. 148-18-17 to 148-18-31 (supp. 1965), as amended (supp. 1967, 1971). |
