80 

 WATER-RIGHT SYSTEMS. 



In the preceding discussion the nature of water rights has been 

 discussed onh^ in a limited wa}', and the attempt has been to show 

 what rights exist in the different States and to define their rehition 

 to each other. It seems desirable to go further and discuss the gen- 

 eral subject of water rights in the Platte watershed in their relation 

 to social conditions and the best use of the water sup])ly. Prelimi- 

 nary to this discussion is a statement of the natnre of the rights in 

 the three States as defined by legislation and court decrees. 



COLORADO. 



The first Territorial legislature of Colorado provided for the 

 acquirement of Avater rights by appropriation, and the Territorial 

 supreme court declared that the right existed prior to legislation on 

 the subject." The right of appropriation, therefore, is not based on 

 legislation, but on natural conditions. The constitution of the State 

 carries this same idea, by not providing for the acquirement of rights 

 by appropriation, but stating that '^ the right to divert the unappro- 

 priated waters of any natural stream for beneficial uses shall never 

 be denied." 



The right of appropriation is therefore a natural right, which the 

 people of the State, in the adoption of their constitution, recognized 

 but did not create. This position is further borne out by decisions of 

 the sui^reme court of the State,'' in which the court held that the legis- 

 lation of the State on this subject was in exercise of its police power. 



The nature of the legislation of the State shoAvs the same thing. 

 It is confined to providing the procedure for defining rights — not 

 granting them — and the procedure and officials for enforcing and pro- 

 tecting rights. 



The laws of the State recognize no riparian rights and the supreme 

 court of the State has held that the doctrine of rijjarian rights has no 

 application to Colorado streams, because of natural conditions, which 

 require that the water of streams be diverted.' 



a The right to water in this country by priority of appropriation tliereof we 

 thinlv it is and always has been the duty of the National and State governments 

 to protect. The right itself, and tlie obligation to protect it, existed prior to 

 legislation on the subject. (Coffin r. Left Hand Ditch Company, 6 Colo., 443.) 



6 This court held that our so-called irrigation statutes for the ascertainment 

 of priorities, and placing the distribution of water for irrigation purposes under 

 control of State offices, are constitutional, though they affect rights which 

 acci-ued before the enactments were made and place upon their enjoyment lim- 

 itations from which they were theretofore exemjit. These statutes are upheld 

 as a rightful exercise of the police power of the State. (New Cache la Poudre 

 Irrigation Company r. Water Supiily and Storage Company, 29 Colo., 469.) 



c Oppenlander v. Left Hand Ditch Company, 18 Colo., 142. 



