Colorado Water Rights

Understanding Water Rights:

The laws defining water rights and the institutions involved in water resources allocation represent the framework for managing waterresources in the United States. Water rights and water allocation programs in the US have largely been the provinces of the states. At this time, there is no national water rights system.

Water rights law and water allocation arrangements reflect differing traditions and conditions across the country. In watere resources, the challenge for government is not one of regulation, but of fair and even-handed allocation. When demand exceeds supply, more sophisticated water allocation arrangements are required than when supply is plentiful.

The law of water rights in the US has included two distrinct systems: riparian rights in the East and the appropriation doctrine in the West. A more accurate picture presents three systems: 1) riparian rights; 2) regulated riparianism (which lays a system of government permits and regulation by state agencies on top of the traditional court-made riparian doctrine); and 3) the appropriation doctrine. Groundwater policy is often some blend of these options.

Riparian Rights:

Riparian rights are the basic rules to allocate water in the eastern US--considered to be roughly east of Kansas City. These policies evolved almost naturally in an environment where water was generally plentiful and excessive government involvement was unwanted.

Under the riparian doctrine, the right to use water from a stream or lake belongs to whoever owns the land on the bank. Every riparian owner is entitled to use water from the stream. This right is defined as the right to enjoy the advantage of a reasonable use of the stram as it flows through the landowner's property. This right, however, is subject to an equivalent right belonging to other riparian owners.

Two rules govern how much water a riparian owner may use. The older rule held that the landowner must leave the natural flow of the river unchanged. Each riparian owner downstream was entitled to have the water in its natural condition, without other landowners altering the rate of flow or the quantity or quality of the water. The more modern rule of reasonable use is that each riparian owner may use the water, regardless of the natural flow, as long as their use does not cause an unreasonable injury to any other riparian user.

Regulated Riparian:

With time, increasing population and development in the East have increased the problems of water distribution. The proliferation of problems and an increased faith in government regulation have caused most states to overlay the traditional riparian system with new administrative schemes, such as permit systems, for regulating water use. This has been described as regulated rigparianism.

The most important feature of regulated riparian statutes is that direct users of water must have a permit from a state administrative agency to use water. Although the standard for granting permits is typicaly similar to reasonable use, reasonable use may be applied differently from the common law riparian doctrine.

Appropriation System:

The arid climate of the western US is less conducive to the use of the riparian system than that of the wetter eastern US. As early trappers, miners, and settlers migrated west, they encountered a hostile environment. Early explorers referred to the Great Plains as the Great American Desert and not all believed that it could be settled. It was obvious that most of the land would require irrigation. Limiting use of streams to only adjoining landowners was not practical; such an action would drastically curtail the settlement and development of the new lands, because nonriparian lands would be practically useless.

The early miners are credited with finding a solution to the problem. By custom, they all accepted the fact that the first miner who used water from a stream to work a placer claim was protected against latecomers. Soon this custom expanded to include the use of water for all purposes, not just for mining. Finally, as the land was organized into territories and then into states, the custom became law through express recognition by court decisions, constitutional provisions, and state statutes.

The appropriation doctrine envelops several interrelated concepts. The two major concepts are: 1) a water right is a right to the use of the water; the right is acquired by appropritaion; and 2) an appropriation is the act of diverting water from its source and applying it to a beneficial use.

Under appropriation doctrine, the oldest rights prevail. The earliest water users have priority over later appropriators during times of water shortage. Another fundamental philosophy expressed in western water law is that public waters must be used for a useful or beneficial purpose. The appropriator can use only the amount of water presently needed, allowing excess water to remain in the stream. Once the water has served its beneficail use, any waste or return flow must be returned to the stream.

In contrast to a riparian right, an appropriaton right is independent of land ownership; the right to a certain quantity of water may be acquired by appropriating and applying water to a benefical use. Often an appropriation right may be limited to a specific time (e.g., day or night, summer or fall, etc.). Appropriation rights are never equal because first-in-time appropriators are guaranteed an ascertainable amount of water. Unlike riparian rights, which are not lost by nonuse, appropriation rights are held only as long as proper beneficial use is continuted. Appropriation rights are subject to abandonment.

(the preceeding was based on Water Resources Planning AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M50 No. 30050)

Background on Colorado Water Rights System:

Under Colorado water law, the right to utilize the waters of the State is based on the priority of a party's appropriation of a specified amount of water, at a specified location, for specified uses (a "water right"). The essence of a water right is its place in the priority system. Colorado's "first in time, first in right" or "prior appropriation" doctrine applies to both surface water and groundwater tributary to a surface stream. In times of water shortage, a senior right may place a "call" on a stream to obtain a full supply. The stream will then come under the administration of the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Reservoir seepage that returns to the stream system is available for appropriation, as is any other unappropriated water of the stream, but the reservoir may be repaired to avoid the loss.

Method of Acquiring Water Rights

The Colorado Constitution declares that the right to appropriate the unappropriated water of the state "shall never be denied."

The first step of an appropriation is an action on the ground, such as a survey, coupled with an existing intent to apply the water to beneficial use. The appropriation date of a water right is the earliest date on which the applicant can demonstrate the initiation of the appropriation: i.e., the coexistence of both an intent to appropriate and an action on the ground manifesting that intent.

The existence of an appropriation is confirmed and the priority of a water right is determined in a proceeding in state Water Court. An application for a water right is made to the Water Court in the appropriate division of the seven water divisions into which Colorado is divided on a stream basin basis. Water court applications must set forth a legal description of the requested diversion, a description of the source of the water, the date of the initiation of the appropriation, the amount of water claimed, and the use of the water. A priority decreed for an application filed in a calendar year is junior to decrees awarded to applications filed in previous calendar years. An exception exists for a federal reserved federal land reservation for which water was impliedly reserved to meet the land reservation's primary purposes.

Conditional Water Right

Because some projects take a long time to complete, an applicant for a water right who has taken the first steps to appropriate water for beneficial use may obtain a "conditional" water right with a definite priority. In order to maintain a conditional water right, an Applicant must demonstrate to the Water Court reasonable diligence in perfecting the appropriation every six years from the date the decree is awarded. Reasonable diligence is demonstrated by showing continuous efforts and interest in developing the water right. To change the conditional decree to an absolute water right, an Applicant must demonstrate to the Water Court that the water has been put to beneficial use. The water right may then become absolute with the conditionally decreed priority relating back to the originally decreed appropriation date.

Plan of Augmentation - Water Critical Basins

If an established municipal water supply is not physically and economically feasible for a new project, the Project may obtain a junior water supply from wells or through stream diversions without the constant threat of curtailment by senior water rights by "augmenting" or increasing the water supply in the stream through a court-approved plan of augmentation. The amount of augmentation water that will need to be provided and the time during which it will need to be available will depend on the amount of water and the timing of the stream depletions of the development, i.e. diversions less return flows. Upon the filing of the plan of augmentation with the water court, parties who believe their water rights may be injured by the plan may file statements of opposition. Prior to approval of a plan of augmentation, the Water Court must determine that the operation of the water supply under the "plan of augmentation" will not injure the vested water rights of others on the stream to which the supply is tributary.

A plan of augmentation may take a number of forms. A developer could acquire senior water rights, stop the former uses, and transfer this water to the development. In the alternative, a developer may construct a reservoir to store water early in the year when the stream is not on call for release later in the year when the stream is under administration.

Wells

Colorado has both an administrative and a court system for determining the right to produce and utilize groundwater. To have permission to drill a well, an applicant must obtain a well permit from the State Engineer's Office ("SEO"). The SEO must grant the permit if the well will not injure the vested water rights of others. When a stream system, including tributary groundwater, is designated water critical, the permit will be denied unless the application can demonstrate a source of augmentation water which will avoid such injury. An applicant, however, may drill test wells without an official well permit if the driller follows certain notification procedures.

While the administrative process provides a right to drill and utilize a well, a decree of the court may be necessary to ensure a legal right to utilize groundwater within Colorado's priority system. In an order of the Water Court decreeing a Plan of Augmentation, the Court can require the SEO to issue the appropriate well permits.

Ditches & Diversions

People need to be aware of their rights and responsibilities in order to avoid the conflicts which commonly erupt between neighbors over the fair sharing of a scarce supply of water. Statutes are also in place to define the relationship between the water user, the state administrators and the private ditch companies. If you have legal questions, a water attorney can be very helpful in explaining your rights under Colorado water law. The Colorado Division of Water Resources is the state agency charged with the administration of the state's rivers and reservoirs and the enforcement of Colorado?s water laws and statutes. Water in Colorado is treated as a private property right that is bought and sold and, at times, can be separated from the land on which it is used. The owner may sell or lease the water rights to others, separate from the land. Sale transactions are recorded at the county where the sale occurs and tracking the ownership of the rights is done through title and deed research, just as with land transactions.

Developers of subdivisions do not always sell the rights to the water with the land, either assuming water will be available to the new land owner from another source or has other uses for the water right. As agricultural land is subdivided, lot lines and new road construction may interfere with historical irrigation patterns which followed contours or the natural slope of the land. This makes the administration and division of water more difficult and often results in conflicts that need to be resolved with the other parties on the ditch system.

Water diversions are regulated and measured by the State Water Commissioner under direction of the Division Engineer and the State Engineer. Once the water is in the ditch, owners may share or distribute those supplies according to ditch agreements or by-laws.

Ditches may be private or individually owned or may be "mutual" incorporated ditches. Water in the incorporated ditches is allocated by shares issued by the company. Those shares represent proportional amounts of decreed water rights. Stock certificates of ownership are issued by some ditch companies. Each ditch company operates under by-laws and any changes require coordination with ditch officials to ensure that the water can still be delivered.

Only those people who have rights or shares in the ditch are allowed to remove water from it. Pumps may not be set in a ditch, ponds may not be constructed, and new "turnouts" may not be made on the ditch without the approval of the ditch company officials. In the case of a privately owned ditch, civil action may be taken against anyone who interferes with or obstructs the flow of water through the ditch. While the conflicts within a ditch system are a civil matter to be resolved between neighbors, the ditch officials and the State Water Commissioner may be able to assist with an opinion or advice.

In Southwestern Colorado many areas have an ample water supply which may provide options toward resolution of water disputes. Water delivery problems or ditch disputes may have a considerable history since the problems often result because of the particular geography in an area rather than the personalities who are presently involved with the problem. As a last resort, the parties may have to take disputes before the court for a legal determination or solution.

In Colorado, ditches and water rights are defined by the point of diversion, diversion rate, priority, source, amount of use, place of use and other conditions found to be necessary when the decree was granted in water court. Colorado's history of water rights statute development and case law defines the roles and responsibilities of water rights owners and ditch administrators.

Diversions in the state of Colorado are subject to the priority system, "first in time, first in right," established in 19th century mining camps. The earliest diversion from a stream or aquifer put to beneficial use is "senior" to subsequent diversions and more junior water rights are shut off as the stream flow decreases.State law can restrict the movement of water between owners if material injury to other rights could occur. If any of the decreed water right attributes is changed, water court action is required. This would include a change in use of the water or a change to a new point of diversion. The division engineer, water commissioner, or ditch riders may order control gates and measuring structures into ditches or at the headgates whenever it becomes necessary to determine or control the flow of water out of the stream or ditch.

If these orders have not been complied with after a period of notice the ditch may be shut off and locked shut, or "tagged" with a signed card ordering the headgate to be set at a certain level. The water commissioner will order curtailment of non-decreed beneficial uses if the stream is being strictly administered at the time. During times when there is a call on the river, decreed but more junior water rights will also be shut off in order to deliver water to the more senior rights in the system.

The appropriation of unallocated water is provided for in the state constitution - "the right to appropriate un-appropriated water in the state of Colorado shall never be denied." A person may enlarge a ditch or pull new ditches to apply water to new lands or to other beneficial uses. The existing ditch owners and land owners through which the ditch crosses must be justly compensated. This compensation may come in the form of agreements between ditch users for maintenance, monetary compensation or a court-determined payment.

Ditches have an established right-of-way to carry water through public and private property due to historic practices. Even if no recorded documentation of the easement exists, this prescribed right of carriage allows the continued use and reasonable access to maintain the ditch and/or easement. Enlargements of the ditch may still require a re-negotiation of that easement.

For more information on ditches, diversions and Colorado water rights, please contact the Colorado Division of Water Resources:

Division of Water Resources
1474 Main Avenue
Durango, Colorado 81301
(970) 247-1845

Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel Basin Facts to Know and Tell

Supply and Demand 

According to the Colorado Water Conservation Boards’ Statewide Water Supply Initiative Studies, the Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel River Basin is projected to experience an increase in municipal and industrial (M&I) and self-supplied industrial (SSI) water demand of 18,800 acre-feet (AF) by 2030. Of the 18,800 AF of increased water demand in the Basin, the majority is proposed to be met through existing supplies and water rights and through the implementation of identified projects and processes. However, there are still some anticipated shortfalls expected in certain portions of the basin.

Law of the River

The Colorado River Basin covers seven states and parts of Mexico, a drainage area of over 244,000 square miles. Precipitation ranges from 30 to 45 inches in mountainous headwaters areas to less than five inches in desert areas. The historic flows of the Colorado River havevaried considerably, both seasonally throughout the year and in dry as opposed to wet periods.

Wide seasonal and yearly fluctuations in Colorado River flows created problems for communities, that depended on Colorado River water for multiple uses, including agriculture,recreation and domestic. In the early 1900's disastrous Colorado River floods caused significant damage to land and communities in the Lower Colorado Basin. California, Arizona and Nevada, the three Lower Colorado River Basin states, grew more rapidly in population and agricultural use than the four Upper Colorado River Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Wyoming v.Colorado established the legal principle that the doctrine of prior appropriation controls regardless of state boundaries. When the other states of the Colorado River Basin realized that rapidly growing California had an opportunity to grab the major share of the flow of the Colorado River, the Upper Basin states were concerned to preserve their fair share of ColoradoRiver water.The Upper Basin States, therefore, opposed new major water development in theLower Basin without assurance of their share of the River.

The water of interstate streams may be allocated by U.S. Supreme Court decree, by federal legislation, or by interstate agreement executed by the affected states and ratified by Congress. After the Wyoming v. Colorado decree, the seven Colorado River Basin states entered into negotiations to better manage the Colorado River, including flood control and water storage, to equitably allocate the Colorado River and to improve water conservation. Delph Carpenter, theColorado member to the Colorado River Commission, was a key exponent of dividing the water of the Colorado River between the two Basins.

The Colorado River Compact, forged by the states and ratified by the U.S. Congress in 1922, is the foundation for the allocation and management of Colorado River water. In the Compact, the water of the Colorado River is divided at Lee Ferry, just below the present site of Glen Canyon Dam. The compact was written so that it would appear that the waters of the Colorado River would be divided on a 50-50 basis between the Upper and Lower basins. Article III(a)apportions 7,500,000 acre-feet ("AF") of water annually to the Upper Basin and Lower Basin respectively "in perpetuity." In Article III(b), however, the Lower Basin claims it was "given the right" to increase its consumptive use of water by one million AF annually, which might have been innocuous except for Article III(c) of the Compact concerning future deliveries of water to Mexico. In computing any deficiency in deliveries to Mexico, the Lower Basin has held that its total use is 8,500,000 AF, while the only use accorded to the Upper Basin is 7,500,000 AF, a claim to which Colorado has continuously objected.

Based on an estimate of 17 million acre-feet as the annual flow in the Colorado River, under the Colorado River Compact the Upper Basin must deliver 75 million AF over a ten year period to the Lower Basin states. Given the quantification of the United States* delivery obligation toMexico of 1.5 AF of Colorado River water annually, under the 1944 treaty between Mexico and the United States, and because the average annual Colorado River flow has now been determined to be closer to 13.5 million AF, the Upper Basin's Colorado River yield is less than an average annual 7.5 million AF. The Mexican Treaty, however, could become the subject of protracted litigation among the Colorado River Basin states. There is unlikely to be any agreement between the Upper and Lower Basins concerning the "deficiency" in deliveries to Mexico as defined in Article III (c) of the Colorado River Compact.

The Colorado River Compact, by its terms, provides that it is not effective until approved by the legislatures of each of the signatory states. After the execution of the Compact, California renewed its battle to obtain Congressional authorization for the construction of the Boulder Dam project. The refusal of the Arizona legislature to ratify the Compact, despite the urging of itscommissioner, was solved by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 ("BCP Act"), which specified that the Compact would become effective when ratified by the legislatures of six states.To placate Arizona, the BCP Act provided that the Compact would not become effective until the California legislature had irrevocably agreed to limit California's consumptive use of Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre-feet annually.

The BCP Act also authorized the states of Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an interstate compact to divide the 7.5 million acre-feet of water apportioned annually to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact. Arizona's refusal to enter into a Lower Basin compact was at least partially laid to rest by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Arizona v.California, and by certain provisions of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968.

The BCP Act also gave Congressional approval for the four Upper Basin states to negotiate a compact dividing among them the 7.5 million AF apportioned to the Upper Basin by theColorado River Compact. In 1948, the four Upper Basin states agreed in the Upper ColoradoRiver Basin Compact to the allocation of the Upper Basin's share of the Colorado River water on a percentage basis to enable a consistent method of determining allocation, regardless of the varying wate rsupplies of the River as follows: Wyoming = 14%, Utah = 23%, New Mexico =11.25%, and Colorado = 51.75%. Only about 20% of the Colorado River Basin lies within Colorado, but about 70% of the Colorado River flow originates with this state. As a result of the various compacts and the accurate projections of river flows, approximately 3 million AF of depletions is available to Colorado annually under the "Law of the River."

As part of the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, Colorado agreed to deliver water to New Mexico from the San Juan River and its tributaries. The state of New Mexico is entitled to approximately 700,000 AF per year from the San Juan River. Over 60% of the surface water in New Mexico flows through San Juan County, including the confluence in Farmington, NewMexico, of the Animas and San Juan Rivers. Approximately 465,000 AF of water is utilized annually by New Mexico water users, including the 110,000 AF transferred through the SanJuan/Chama diversions on the Navajo and Rio Blanco in Colorado to the Rio Grande valley.

Authorized by Congress in 1968, the Animas-La Plata Project ("A-LP Project") would provide water to the Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes in Colorado in settlement of a portion of their reserved water rights claims, and municipalities, industries and agriculture inColorado and New Mexico. Municipal and industrial water for the towns and industries in SanJuan County, New Mexico would total 34,000 AF annually from the A-LP Project.

Water in Colorado - A Brief History

The history of the Colorado River mirrors the history of the American west. Competing water uses from the Colorado River system have defined Colorado history for over 100 years. The legal right to divert and use water in Colorado has been deliberated and defined from before the time of statehood in 1876. Article 16 of the Colorado constitution defines the water doctrine known as "prior appropriation", which has stood the test of time as Colorado developed from a frontier western state to the modern era of the late 20th century. Since 1876, the constitution and subsequent water court rulings have governed the use, diversion and storage of water in Colorado. "Prior appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose...." is a Colorado constitutional excerpt that is the basis for the first in use, first in right doctrine of water appropriation. This Colorado water doctrine has become one of the legal foundations upon which water is governed, managed and distributed in Colorado.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) oversees water and related issues in the State of Colorado. As part of the Department of Natural Resources, the CWCB is involved in many water management and policy issues in Colorado. The Colorado Division of Water Resources provides specific services to citizens of the state including administration of laws in accordance with court decrees and state legislation.

The State Engineer's office in Colorado has maintained meticulous records on water usage, diversions and streamflows for many years. Presently the state is divided into 7 water divisions, with 80 districts. Two hundred professional staff members work together to administer Colorado's water according to the Colorado doctrine of prior appropriation, state law, water court decrees and interstate compacts.

Colorado has the enviable position in the west as being a water producing state that has numerous mountain ranges from which the rivers are supplied. While the water provided by annual Colorado streamflows is more than ample, the seasonal nature of streamflows is not consistent with the demand by Colorado citizens for domestic, agriculture and industry uses. Nearly 2/3 of the annual water flow (measured in acre feet of water) occurs during the late spring/early summer runoff. During the winter months of December, January and February only 3% of annual flows occur.

Presently, Colorado reservoirs store the spring runoff from mountain snowpack for use in the late summer and low flow winter months. This "reserved" water is stored for use throughout the year by downstream users.

In addition, water storage units along the Colorado River system provide flood control, recreational sports, excellent fishing and hydro-electric power.

As a water producing and exporting state, Colorado water leaving the state on an annual basis exceeds 10 million acre feet. The main stem of the Colorado River west of Grand Junction provides nearly 5 million acre feet of that amount for downstream users. The Colorado River Compact is the ruling document that was established after long negotiations between the seven states along the Colorado River in 1922. Although the Colorado Compact formed the basis for the "Law of the River", much debate and deliberation was to follow the historic 1922 treaty. The State of Wyoming consistently challenged Colorado's right to divert headwaters streamflow from the west to east slope of Colorado. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the waters of the Colorado River would be governed according to the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, the Upper Basin states (Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado) became concerned that the Lower Basin states would be at an unfair advantage due to their more rapid development of water resources. As a result of complex negotiations between the states in a forum called the Colorado River Commission, the elements of the famous Colorado River Compact were forged between the 7 states along the Colorado River system.

In 1902, the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) was created as an agency of the federal government. Over the past 90 years the USBR has been coordinating the planning, construction and implementation of numerous water diversion and storage projects in the western United States. Irrigation projects throughout the west are based on contracts between the water users and the USBR. Hydro-electric power revenues from Colorado River Storage Projects are used to offset some of the costs of irrigation projects and repayment contracts. Usually, water for domestic use is charged a higher rate than irrigation water in USBR repayment contracts. The USBR manages existing water reservoirs in the Colorado River System that were constructed with federal financing. Colorado River System reservoirs that have federal financial obligations are in the process of being repaid to the U.S. government by water users and hydroelectric revenues. For example, Vallecito Lake north of Bayfield, Colorado, was completed in the early 1940's. In the early 1980's, the Pine River Irrigation District paid off its U.S. government obligations and operates Vallecito Lake debt free.

In 1944, a treaty was signed with Mexico providing our neighbor to the south with 1.5 million acre feet annually from the Colorado River system. In1948, the Upper Basin States agreed to a percentage appropriation of the waters of the Colorado River System. Colorado's share of the 7.5 million acre Upper Basin allotment was set at 51.75%. Subsequent negotiations among the Seven Basin states and court decrees have quantified Colorado's share of the Colorado River system, which is estimated to be approximately 3.1 million acre feet of water per year.

As in the past, the Colorado River system continues to provide water to millions of residents of the Colorado Basin and generates economic benefits in direct and indirect ways. Indian water rights, endangered species, water quality, interstate conflicts and environmental legislation are impacting the water users and states along the Colorado River system. Present and future generations will continue to wrestle with the issues of the Colorado River. Over the past 100 years, the history of water in Colorado has helped shape the "Law of the River" throughout the Basin and our state. While the conservation, use and storage of water will be a source of debate among users and the states, water continues to be Colorado's most precious resource. How we manage, conserve, store and distribute water will remain one of Colorado's most pressing policy challenges.

Water Resources in the Four Corners Region

A number of natural resources are required for uses in agriculture, residential, business and industry. Among these resources that are needed by communities are electricity, land, water, sewer services and natural gas. In the Four Corners region, water resource management is critical for agriculture, business, industry and communities. Rather than debate the politics of water, we will focus on the management of the resource and how it impacts the communities in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico.

Since water is a finite resource, it is managed through a complex set of laws, water rights, storage and distribution facilities and management agencies. Early in the history of the Four Corners region, farmers began to acquire water diversion rights, create ditch (irrigation) companies and irrigate lands to increase crop yields. Cities filed on municipal water rights, developed municipal water systems and began to develop water pipeline networks to distribute water to city dwellers.

While water law and administration is somewhat different in all the states, most western states follow the "law of prior appropriation", which can be stated as "first in time (use), first in right". In other words, water is allocated as a property right in a similar fashion to season tickets to the Denver Broncos or the Dallas Cowboys. The senior water rights belong to the senior water users, provided that they can demonstrate continued "beneficial use" of that water. This is a simplistic explanation of a very complex set of water regulations, laws and property rights, but it is important to note that the management of the water resources occurs in a very controlled framework. Most agricultural users do not own water rights directly, rather they own "ditch shares" or certain diversion rights as members of an irrigation company. Others have contracted for "project water" from a federally funded US Bureau of Reclamation sponsored water reservoir, such as McPhee Reservoir near Dolores. Agricultural water is measured on a per acre foot (one foot deep of water covering one acre) or cubic feet per second diverted. Irrigators also use the term "inches of water" or "ditch shares" of water to quantify the amount of water they are using or managing. Depending on the crop and agricultural techniques, irrigated lands generally have much higher yields and productivity per acre than dry land operations. Water for irrigation is "raw water" which is not pre-treated and is allocated on a per acre foot per cfs or other larger volume billing structure.

Municipal and industrial water resource management is much different than agricultural water resource management, even though the same river systems and water reservoirs are used by all water users for their source of water. Municipal use requires an absolute or year round water supply that is usually more expensive to acquire, develop and manage than other conditional or seasonal diversion rights. Although only 3 to 5% of the water resources are utilized by municipal (city) water users, their demand on water resources is year round and perpetual. City water utilities or rural water systems provide water on a flat charge plus cost per 1,000 gallon rate that may span a wide range of pricing structures depending on many factors. As compared to water for agriculture, municipal water is much more costly and is treated for domestic use. It is also pressurized for distribution to individual households or businesses. In addition, municipal water systems may provide raw or treated water for irrigation (golf courses, parks, aquatic facilities), public safety (fire protection and suppression) and city beautification (street washing or median strips).

Due to the cost of diversion, storage, treatment and distribution, water conservation makes sense in an urban setting, whether using xeriscape (lower water use) landscape, low flow plumbing fixtures or tiered water rate structures which increase the cost of water based on usage (and thereby encourage conservation).

Water resource management is critical for communities, agriculture, business and industry in the Four Corners region. Water districts and commissions, municipal water utilities and rural water systems comprise the types of organizations that divert, store and distribute water to both city and rural use. As one of our most essential needs, the prudent use and management of our water resources is critical for our communities and agricultural users