quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Since you are back to posting in a style that makes responding in a useful manner nearly impossible I'll simply hit the high points. Please read these statements literally. Do not insert any words.

Riparian does not mean a body of water. It means river bank.

So riparian water would be that water contained by the bank of the river,stream,lake etc.

If there was surplus water and SLC grew and appropriated that water they would have rights to it simply at a later date than there earlier appropriation.

So someone who were to make a p/a claim on that water in between any of slc's claims would be entitled to water


Any way you add it up the fact that SLC felt the need to assign part of there appropriation rights to the car washes cistern is indicative thet they are managing a very tight water supply that does not have a surplus that the car wash itself could appropriate.


Since we are at this time not privy to the exact accomodation that was made is it possible that it was easier to give him a permit than to try to fight him in court on an issue he would have won. Since if he had no chance of winning there would be no incentive for slc to give him the permit.

I never made any case that SLC was using riparian source. I was always talking about prior appropriation, you chose to misinterpret my statements to attempt to put me in the wrong.

You are the one who used the words upstream and river. You are the one who cited wyoming v colorado which was about the laramie river. No where have you cited ground water, wells or any other source of water except riparian water.
Are you done trying to pick fly shit out of pepper?
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Wyoming v Colorado is about prior appropriation not about riparian rights. No matter how many times you claim otherwise.

This from post 76:
You would have noticed that both wyoming and colorado governed their water rights for many years on the bassis of prior appropriation,and long before the case cited came to the courts. The case cited adjudacates how much of the water goes to whom based on the long history of prior appropriation in practice in both colorado and wyoming.
This from post 78:

quote:

Wyoming v Colorado made prior appropriation the standard between the western states.

No it did not. It adjudicated the prior appropriation rights of wyoming and colorado to a riparian source, the laramie river.

This also from post 78:
SLC is dealing with a prior appropriation of a riparian source and claiming that rainwater is part of that source which you stated.

This from post 80:
Riparian means water that is in a lake, stream or river etc....somewhat different than riparian rights.
In the case cited wyoming v colorado it is colorado which is upstream from wyoming on the laramie river and if you had read the cite on wyoming v colorado you would have known that colorado was seeking to divert water upstream from wyoming which had the prior appropriative right. The supreme court ruled in favor of wyoming's prior appropriation and limited the amount that colorado could remove upstream from wyoming.

I am sorry you did not notice the four different times I mentioned that we were talking about a/p rights and not riparian rights.


Try and understand this, riparian water rights and prior appropriation water rights are distinct ways of allocating water from some source.

Perhaps if you were to actually read what I post instead of what you want to believe you might have noticed the four times in three post where I said that very thing.


In the mountain west it is done exclusively by prior appropriation, it doesn't matter if the water source is runoff or a creek or a river or a lake.


I am sorry you did not notice this post which list the states which use p/a
this from post 78:

The States that have a hybrid system (that is both riparian rights and prior appropriation rights) include California, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Which would leave idaho, montana, wyoming, colorado, utah, nevada, arizona and new mexico as those states which recognize only prior appropriation law.

So the question is:
What are you arguing?