Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130556
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:24:26+00:00

Document:
METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 387 where a notice was not filed or posted as required by the statute,810 or where reasonable diligence in prosecuting the work was lacking,811 there could be no relation back to the time of beginning. The Texas and Wyoming preadministration statutes provided that an intending appropriator should file a notice in the county records within a prescribed time after commencement of construction, which in Wyoming went back to the beginning of necessary surveys.812 Until 1969, the Colorado statute provided that an intending appropriator had to file a statement of his claim in the office of the State Engineer within 60 days after construction of his ditch or reservoir.813 Nothing was said about relation back. However, the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine of relation, and has held that to obtain its benefit, construction must have been prosecuted with reasonable diligence, with a fixed purpose to carry through the project, and completed within a reasonable time.814 "Once the decision has been made to proceed with the project, continuing investigations and changes are simply evidence of diligence and endeavor to accomplish the greatest good at a minimum of cost to the public, not abandonment of the project."815 In 1969, the Colorado Legislature repealed the above-mentioned filing requirement,816 and enacted provisions for the voluntary determination of water rights and conditional water rights, amounts and priorities thereof, approval of plans for augmentation, and bienniel findings of reasonable diligence.817 In establishing standards for such determinations the legislature recognized the doctrine of relation back by providing:818 In the determination of a water right the priority date awarded shall be that date on which the appropriation was initiated if the appropriation was Mont. 260, 269, 50 Pac. 723 (1897); State ex rel. Van Winkle v. People's West Coast Hydro-Electric Corp., 129 Oreg. 475, 481-482, 278 Pac. 583 (1929); Robinson v. Schoenfeld, 62 Utah 233, 238-239, 218 Pac. 1041 (1923); State ex rel. Ham, Yearsley & Ryrie v. Superior Court, 70 Wash. 442, 462, 126 Pac. 945 (1912). *i0Pyke v. Burnside, 8 Idaho 487, 490, 69 Pac. 477 (1902). 811 Still v. Palouse In. & Power Co., 64 Wash. 606, 612-614,117 Pac. 466 (1911). 8iaTex. Gen. Laws 1889, § 8; Wyo. Laws 1888, ch. 55, §§11 and 12. "And many appropriations now existing, made before the adoption of the present statutes, have been established, and others will be established, in respect to priorities, upon evidence as to time of commencing work or making surveys." Whalon v. North Platte Canal & Colonization Co., 11 Wyo. 313, 344, 71 Pac. 995 (1903). 813Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 148-4-1 to 148-4-7 (1963). The Colorado Supreme Court held that compliance with the filing requirements was not necessary to the validity of the appropriation. Black v. Taylor, 128 Colo. 449, 457-458, 264 Pac. (2d) 502 (1953). "'Denver v. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 384, 388, 276 Pac. (2d) 992 (1954). *lsFour Counties Water Users Assn. v. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist., 159 Colo. 499, 514-516, 414 Pac. (2d) 469 (1966). 816 Colo. Laws 1969, ch. 373, § 20. 817Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 148-21-1 to 148-21-45 (Supp. 1969). . §148-21-21 (1).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 §148