Water Rights Determination and Administration Act (Colorado)

Last updated January 08, 2023

Water Rights Determination and Administration Act (Colorado) was passed by the Colorado General Assembly in 1969 which constituted a major makeover of the way the state applied and enforced its evolving water law. The first two legislative acts creating a basis for Colorado water law were passed in 1879 and 1881. The position of State Engineer was created to record and maintain records of water-rights priority from irrigator filings; it called for a water commissioner in each of the arbitrary water districts (sometimes geographically incoherent); and made the district court the adjudicator of all water rights and judge in conflicts.^[1] These acts were foundational and had been modified in 1891, 1899 and 1903 as other domestic uses joined agriculture in the adjudication system. In 1919 all water rights were required to be adjudicated. Due to inconsistencies and complaints in the 1960s, state legislative council appointed a water committee to travel the state to determine what was required to fix the major insufficiencies.

The state had over 70 water districts handling filings. The same stream had several water districts appropriating priorities without knowledge of what the others were doing. Another problem occurred with the growing awareness of the relationship between ground water and surface water.

The issue of federal reserved rights on public lands under the Winters Doctrine put junior water rights appropriations to these hidden rights in an unjust situation when and if those hidden rights were put to use and filed on.

The results of this water committee traveling the state were compiled, and the creation of the Water Rights Determination and Administration Act produced the following:^[2]

Organized the state's water districts into seven divisions based on watersheds, with water courts in district and division engineers administering the water rights.
The clerk of the water court was responsible for publishing a monthly resume of water-rights applications making the adjudication process continuous and transparent.
Incorporated all tributary wells into the priority system.
Required junior water users on over-appropriated streams to create augmentation plans to obtain sufficient replacement water from a reservoir with senior water or other options.
Clarified and formulated a common set of procedures for all water-rights applications, changes of water rights, exchanges, augmentation plans, objections to applications.
Established rulemaking and enforcement procedures for determining and administering federal reserved rights, tribal rights, and state appropriative rights.

The Supreme Court was petitioned by the federal government for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the new law was in compliance with the McCarran Amendment of 1952, which waived federal sovereign immunity in water issues and compelled the government to register its claims under each state's water-appropriation system.^[3] The act has been amended or added to many times since but continues to be sound foundation for determining and administering water rights.

Related Research Articles

Time immemorial is a phrase meaning time extending beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition, indefinitely ancient, "ancient beyond memory or record". The phrase is used in legally significant contexts as well as in common parlance.

Water resources law is the field of law dealing with the ownership, control, and use of water as a resource. It is most closely related to property law, and is distinct from laws governing water quality.

Prior appropriation: In water rights, the legal doctrine of prior appropriation holds that the first person to take a quantity of water from a water source for "beneficial use" has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waters § 355 (2021). These individuals are the senior users. Senior users do not "own" the water source. Rather, they have the right to use the water source within the limitations of a state's established prior appropriation laws.Douglas County v. Sedalia Water and Sanitation District, 343 P.3d 16.

Stephen Fain Williams was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit until his death from complications of COVID-19 on August 7, 2020.

Water right in water law refers to the right of a user to use water from a water source, e.g., a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious. In other areas, especially arid areas where irrigation is practiced, such systems are often the source of conflict, both legal and physical. Some systems treat surface water and ground water in the same manner, while others use different principles for each.

In law and government, appropriation is the act of setting apart something for its application to a particular usage, to the exclusion of all other uses.

An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a United States court may apply to refuse to hear a case if hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court. Such doctrines are usually invoked where lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems at the same time.

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.

Signed into effect on 12 June 2002, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, (PHSBPRA) was signed by the President, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Water trading is the process of buying and selling water access entitlements, also often called water rights. The terms of the trade can be either permanent or temporary, depending on the legal status of the water rights. Some of the western states of the United States, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Iran and Spain's Canary Islands have water trading schemes. Some consider Australia's to be the most sophisticated and effective in the world. Some other countries, especially in South Asia, also have informal water trading schemes. Water markets tend to be local and informal, as opposed to more formal schemes.

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is an agency in the government of Oklahoma under the Governor of Oklahoma. OWRB is responsible for managing and protection the water resources of Oklahoma as well as for planning for the state's long-range water needs. The Board is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Oklahoma Senate. The Board, in turn, appoints an Executive Director to administer the agency.

California's interconnected water system serves over 30 million people and irrigates over 5,680,000 acres (2,300,000 ha) of farmland. As the world's largest, most productive, and potentially most controversial water system, it manages over 40 million acre-feet (49 km³) of water per year.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations. This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of American Indians in cases where the rights were not clear. The case was first argued on October 24, 1907, and a decision was reached January 6, 1908. This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of American Indian water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of American Indian people.

Paul v British Columbia , 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

Water law in the United States refers to the Water resources law laws regulating water as a resource in the United States. Beyond issues common to all jurisdictions attempting to regulate water's uses, water law in the United States must contend with:

Water in Colorado is of significant importance, as the American state of Colorado is the 7th-driest state in America. As result, water rights generate conflict, with many water lawyers in the state.

The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress in 1952 which waives the United States' sovereign immunity in suits concerning ownership or management of water rights. It amended Chapter 15 of Title 43 of the United States Code. The McCarran Amendment gives others the right to join in such a lawsuit as a defendant. Prior to the Amendment, sovereign immunity kept the United States from being joined in any suits. The Amendment enabled suits concerning federal water rights to be tried in state courts.

The Division of Water Resources within the Kansas Department of Agriculture governs the use and allocation of the state's water resources; regulates the construction of dams, levees and other changes to streams; represents Kansas on its four interstate river compacts; and coordinates the National Flood Insurance Program in Kansas. These responsibilities are accomplished through the administration of 30 state laws, including the Kansas Water Appropriation Act, Groundwater Management District Act, Obstructions in Streams, and the Levee Law.

The California Water Commission Act of 1913 was the first attempt by the legislature of the state of California to address water rights in a comprehensive manner. The Act was necessitated by the complicated landscape of competing water rights doctrines, demands for reclamation and irrigation, and tension between large landowners and smaller farmers all in the context of California's unique climate and topography. The State Water Commission created by the Act was given the responsibility of permitting and licensing water appropriators post-1914, but had no authority over pre-1914 claims. Ultimately the Act improved the recording of water rights but was inadequate to supervise the distribution of water and left many unresolved issues.

The Montana Water Court is a court of law in the U.S. state of Montana which has jurisdiction over the adjudication of water rights. The filing, verification, recording, and enforcement of water rights in the Montana Territory and, later, the state of Montana were considered highly inadequate until 1972, when a new state constitution required a more robust, highly centralized water rights legal system. Implementation of this system led to the establishment of the Water Court in 1979, after six years of mixed success with an administrative solution. The Water Court consists of a Chief Water Judge, Associate Water Judge, and four District Water Judges, but most work is handled by special masters. The process of identifying, verifying, and adjudicating water rights is a complex one, and budgetary and personnel issues have slowed the work at times. Appeals from the Water Court are made directly to the Montana Supreme Court.

References

↑ Sibley, George. Water Wranglers. The 75-Year History of the Colorado River District: A Story About the Embattled Colorado River and the Growth of the West. Grand Junction, Colorado: Distributed in the U. S. by Colorado River District. Copyright and first printing September 13, 2012 by George Sibley and Colorado River District. P. 282.
↑ Hobbs, Justice Gregory W., Jr. Colorado's 1969 Adjudication and Administration Act: Settling In. Vol. 3, U. Denver Water Law Review; Issue 1, Fall 1999.
↑ Water Wranglers. P. 283.

External links

Colorado Foundation for Water Education Retrieved 2012-10-24.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Sibley, George. Water Wranglers. The 75-Year History of the Colorado River District: A Story About the Embattled Colorado River and the Growth of the West. Grand Junction, Colorado: Distributed in the U. S. by Colorado River District. Copyright and first printing September 13, 2012 by George Sibley and Colorado River District. P. 282.

[2] Hobbs, Justice Gregory W., Jr. Colorado's 1969 Adjudication and Administration Act: Settling In. Vol. 3, U. Denver Water Law Review; Issue 1, Fall 1999.

[3] Water Wranglers. P. 283.

[1]

[2]

[3]