Error
to district court, El Paso county.
This is
an agreed case submitted for decision without suit, under
chapter 24 of the Code. The section permitting the submission
reads as follows: 'Parties to a question in difference
which might be the subject of a civil action, may, without
action, agree upon a case containing the facts upon which the
controversy depends, and present a submission of the same to
any court which would have jurisdiction if an action had been
brought; but it must appear by affidavit that the controversy
is real, and the proceedings in good faith, to determine the
rights of the parties. The court shall thereupon hear and
determine the case, and render judgment thereon, as if an
action were depending.' Section 278, Code 1887. The
present controversy has reference to an attempted increase by
the city of Colorado Springs of its water supply, such
increase becoming necessary on account of the growth of the
city; the city being about to purchase from the owners of
water-rights for agriculture such rights, to the end that the
water may be diverted to the use of the city. The plaintiff
a citizen and tax-payer of the city, and an owner of a
water-right for irrigation purposes upon Fountain creek
hereinafter mentioned, seeks to restrain the city authorities
from its contemplated action. The agreed statement of facts
is as follows: '(1) That the defendant is a municipal
corporation, being a city of the second class of this state
and has and maintains a system of water-works for the purpose
of furnishing, and through which it furnishes, its
inhabitants with water. (2) That the plaintiff is a citizen
and tax-payer of the city of Colorado Springs, and an owner
of a water-right for irrigation purposes, upon the Fountain
creek, hereinafter mentioned, that is prior in right to any
appropriation of water made by the defendant, and which is
impaired by the defendant's appropriations of water. (3)
That heretofore, in the year 1878, defendant constructed a
pipe-line and reservoir, and supplied and still supplies them
with water, from Ruxton creek, above the town of Manitou; and
that in the year 1889, to supply the increased wants of its
inhabitants, defendant greatly enlarged the capacity of said
pipe-line, reservoir and water-works system, and to supply
them now requires about * * * million gallons of water daily
and exceeding the flow of water in said Ruxton creek; that
the waters of the Ruxton and the Fountain creeks flow
together in the town of Manitou, and that the waters of said
creeks at their junction are naturally of about equal volume;
that said Ruxton creek is about five miles in length, and is
fed and formed by a number of streams coming together above
the place of intake of defendant's pipe-line, all of
which is substantially shown by the map here with filed. (4)
That defendant has, for the purpose of supplying its said
water-works, the first priority of water-rights upon said
Ruxton creek, but that there are upon the Fountain creek,
below the point where said Ruxton creek and Fountain creek
flow together, a great number of water-rights for irrigation
and ranch purposes, prior to defendant's right, upon said
Ruxton creek, sufficient to take all the waters of Fountain
creek, after receiving the waters of Ruxton creek. (5) That
defendant takes, and will continue to take, for its said use,
substantially all of the waters of Ruxton creek, so that no
water of Ruxton creek will reach Fountain creek. (6) That, in
addition to the said pipe-line, said defendant is the owner
of a certain ditch or canal, known as the 'El Paso County
Canal,' which takes water directly from the said Fountain
creek, for the use of its inhabitants. (7) That defendant
requires both the said pipe-line and the said ditch to
furnish the necessary supply of water for the use of its
inhabitants. (8) That the water taken from Ruxton creek
aforesaid, through defendant's pipe-line, is continuously
used by its inhabitants, through its hydrants, for culinary,
drinking, general household purposes, sprinkling lawns and
streets, in business houses, livery stables, etc., while the
water taken through said ditch or canal is used by defendant
to irrigate lawns, parks, trees upon its streets, small
gardens, truck patches, etc., continuously from April to
October of each year. (9) That the defendant's said ditch
was by the district court of El Paso county, in the year
1882, in the adjudication of the priorities of water-rights
of water district No. 10, adjudicated to be No. 32, and said
original pipe-line was then in like manner adjudicated to be
No. 1 on Ruxton creek, and that there are 31 appropriations
of water upon said Fountain creek that are prior to the
defendant's said ditch, which are of capacities
sufficient, in times of scarcity, to take all of the waters
of said creek for agricultural purposes; so that, in order
that defendant have the use of water when it needs it, it
must to a great extent interfere with said appropriations
that are prior to its ditch and pipe-lines, and including the
said water-rights of plaintiff. (10) That the defendant has
continuously, including the months from April to October of
each year, since the year 1871 to the present year, taken
from the waters of said Fountain creek, through its said El
Paso county canal, water to the capacity of said canal; and
also has taken continuously, through its said original
pipe-line, of the water of said Ruxton creek, continuously
since the year 1878, waters to the full capacity of said
original pipe-line, claiming it had a right so to do; and
though the plaintiff and other prior appropriators of water
of said Fountain creek have been to a greater or less degree,
for and during each of said periods, injuriously affected
thereby, they have failed to object thereto, and to assert
any prior rights of appropriation he or they had to the water
so taken by the defendant; yet said persons, including the
plaintiff, now claim damages therefor of the defendant, and
the full amount of their respective original appropriations,
without diminution of the amounts so taken and appropriated
by the defendant, which defendant will pay to them unless
enjoined by this court. (11) That many of the persons holding
priorities upon said Fountain creek over the defendant, and
who are injuriously affected by defendant's said
appropriation of water, do not take, and never have taken,
through their respective canals or ditches, water to the
amount decreed to them in and by the decree aforesaid,
because either that their said ditches are not of sufficient
capacity to carry such decreed appropriation, or that
sufficient water has not been contained in the said creek to
supply the amounts so decreed, or that such person has not
had under cultivation sufficient land to receive such decreed
amount of water; yet, nevertheless, such persons demand of
the defendant damages upon the full decreed amount of their
respective appropriations, and, unless restrained by this
honorable court, the defendant will settle their damages upon
such basis. (12) That the defendant has been negotiating for
and is about to purchase some of the water-rights for
agricultural irrigation purposes that are prior to the
defendant's ditch and pipe-line, with the view of taking
the water belonging to such prior water-rights, through its
said ditch and pipe-line, for the use of its inhabitants.
(13) That defendant is about to negotiate for such of said
water-rights as are prior to its pipe-line and its ditch,
under and pursuant to subdivision 73 of section 3312 of the
General Statutes, upon the basis that such priorites as it so
settles for, either by consent or condemnation, deprives such
prior appropriator of all his right, title, claim, and
priority in and to the waters of said Fountain creek, and by
such settlement defendant will pay to such prior
appropriators sums of money greatly in excess of what it
would pay by settling with such prior appropriators upon the
basis that by such settlement or condemnation the said rights
remain intact, subject only to diminution to the extent of
defendant's uses.' Plaintiff prays that defendant be
enjoined from purchasing water-rights from said Fountain
creek, etc., and for general relief. The court below, upon a
final hearing, denied the relief sought by the plaintiff, and
entered judgment accordingly.
1. The
fundamental principle of our system of water-rights is that
priority in point of time gives superiority of right among
appropriators for like beneficial purposes.
2. The
rights of a prior appropriator from a stream cannot be
impaired by subsequent appropriations of water from its
tributaries.
3. A
prior appropriator of water from a stream may change the
point of diversion and the place of use without losing his
priority, provided the rights of others are not injuriously
affected by such change.
4. A
priority to the use of water for irrigation is a property
right, and may be sold and transferred separately from the
land in connection with which the right ripened.
5.
Rights acquired to the use of water for irrigation, prior to
the adoption of our state constitution, cannot be taken by a
city for the domestic use of its inhabitants, without
compensation.
6. The
provisions of the constitution operate prospectively only,
unless a contrary intention clearly appears from the words
employed.
T. A. McMorris, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. Harrision, for defendant in error.
HAVT,
J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
The
points upon which a decision is asked, as given upon the oral
argument, may be stated as follows: (1) Are the rights of a
junior appropriator of water from a...