Legal Opinion
Atencio v. RICHFIELD CANAL COMPANY
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided January 10, 1972No. 23506PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
MR. JUSTICE HODGES.
A unique water appropriation issue is presented on this writ of error. It can best be described and understood by briefly setting forth the fact situation involved.
Richfield Canal Company, the trial court defendant and the defendant in error here, is the owner of Priority No. 105 dated 1885 for 112.5 c.f.s. of water from the Conejos River. The decreed diversion point is approximately 250 ft. upstream from the confluence of the San Antonio and Conejos Rivers. At the time of the appropriation, there was a rock dam located at the confluence of these rivers. It…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Farmers Highline Canal & Reservoir Co. v. City of GoldenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1954
- Vogel v. Minnesota Canal & Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Cache la Poudre Irrigation Ditch Co. v. HawleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch Co. v. Coal Ridge Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1942
- DeHerrera v. Manassa Land and Irrigation CompanySupreme Court of Colorado · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Okanogan Wilderness League, Inc. v. Town of TwispWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- OWL, INC. v. Town of TwispWashington Supreme Court · 1997