Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130523
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:59:03+00:00

Document:
354 APPROPRIATION OF WATER the authority from the State to construct a reservoir. A secondary permit is the State's authority to appropriate to beneficial use the waters impounded in a reservoir. (2) Under the circumstances of this case, in which the reservoir owners and persons intending to use its impounded waters were the same, the statute was not mandatory, but was permissive only. As a result, its procedures need not be followed. However, the question as to whether a secondary permit had or had not been granted in this case was not debatable. Separate appropriations.-Colorado water law has recognized appropriations of two classes-(a) one for diversion of water for immediate application to a particular beneficial use; (b) the other for storage of water to be used subsequently.642 An appropriation of water for one of these functions has not been an appropriation for the other.643 In the Handy Ditch Company case, the supreme court held that an appropriator could not claim storage rights for even temporary periods under an appropriation for direct irrigation. Other cases have indicated that a reservoir appropriation is limited to one filling in each f<AA year. The Colorado Adjudication Act of 1943 included in its definitions of terms as used therein the following:645 (6) "Direct water right" shall mean the right to divert water for immediate use. (7) "Storage water right" shall mean the right of impounding water for future beneficial use. However, this was repealed in 1969,646 More on the distinction between appropriation of these classes in Colorado appears in the following subtopic. Relative priorities of direct flow and storage water rights.-In most western jurisdictions, it is the rule that all appropriative rights on a stream system are integrated on a basis of relative priorities attaching to the several rights, regardless of whether they pertain to direct flow or to storage, or to both. No preference attaches to either group. There is nothing in the statutes of most States nor in most high court decisions that suggests preferential treatment other than that accorded on the basis of relative priorities. There is an exception to the general rule in Nebraska where the water rights law provides that: "The owners or possessors of reservoirs shall not have the "'-Handy Ditch Co. v. Greeley & Loveland Irr. Co., 86 Colo. 197, 198-200, 280 Pac. 481 (1929). 643Holbrook Irr. Dist. v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 84 Colo. 174, 191, 269 Pac. 574 (1928); City and County of Denver v. Northern Colorado Water Cons. Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 276 Pac.(2d) 992, 999 (1954). ""Windsor Res. & Canal Co. v. Lake Supply Ditch Co., 44 Colo. 214, 223-225, 98 Pac. 729 (1908)\Holbrook Irr. Dist. v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 84 Colo. 174, 192, 269 Pac. 547 (1928). 64SColo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-9-1 (1963). 646Colo. Laws 1969, ch. 373, § 20.

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