Opinion ID: 2630950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lupton Bottom Ditch

Text: The water court found that the 1863 Lupton Bottom Ditch right permits the use of water on parcels of land within eleven miles of the headgate. FRICO contends that the 1863 Lupton Bottom Ditch right is limited to use on parcels within four miles of the headgate. To support this claim, FRICO submitted analysis of the evidence relating to the historical development and the use of senior priority rights in the Lupton Bottom Ditch. The water court refused to consider this analysis because [t]he basis of FRICO's tables and calculations [is] not apparent and Broomfield did not have the chance to cross-examine the creator of this analysis. The water court relied on several pieces of evidence to conclude that the 1863 appropriation extended to use on property along the entire eleven-mile stretch of Lupton Bottom Ditch, instead of property along a four-mile stretch. First, the water court considered a decree from 1883 and the statement of claim filed in that case. The statement of claim preceding this decree said that the ditch was eleven miles long, not four. The decree also recognized that the ditch had been extended from four miles to eleven miles. While a decree does not create or grant any rights, it serves as evidence of pre-existing rights. Cresson Consol. Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Whitten, 139 Colo. 273, 283, 338 P.2d 278, 283 (1959) (A decree in a water adjudication is only confirmatory of pre-existing rights; the decree does not create or grant any rights; it serves as evidence of rights previously acquired.). Second, the water court considered the testimony of Howard Cantrell, who owned the property served by the Lupton Bottom Ditch Company. He testified that the Lupton Bottom Ditch extended eleven miles. [1] Thus, the record provides ampie support that the 1863 right to the Lupton Bottom Ditch extended to parcels within eleven miles of the headgate.