Medano Ditch Co. v. Adams

29 Colo. 317
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided January 15, 1902·No. No. 4139·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinions

Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court.

The first proposition advanced by counsel for defendants is, that the testimony does not establish an appropriation by plaintiff of the waters of Big and Little Spring creeks which antedates the diversion of the waters of Medaño creek by them. If the rights of plaintiff in this respect depended solely upon testimony to establish an actual application of the waters of Big and Little Spring creeks for the purposes of irrigation, this proposition might have some force. Such, however, is not the case. In each of his complaints plaintiff claimed an appropriation of the waters of these streams through Los Ojos, Hull, South Number One and South Number Two ditches. Water district No. 25 embraces the drainage of Medaño and Big and Little Springs creeks. It appears from a decree of the district court of Costilla county entered at the March term, 1895, and introduced in evidence, that under a statutory adjudication of water rights in that district the ditches in question were awarded different priorities, of specific volumes of water, from Big and Little Spring creeks, dating from March 10, 1875, to May 1, 1881. The ditches of defendants were constructed in 1892 and 1894. The water decree was prima facie evidence that appropriations of water for purposes of irrigation had been made from those streams of the dates and volumes awarded the ditches through which [321]*321plaintiff asserts his rights, antedating the rights initiated by defendants.

It is next urged by counsel for defendants that the testimony does not establish that the waters of the Medaño contribute substantially to those of Big and Little Spring creeks, and that if they do, it is only by percolation. At the request of counsel for both sides, the trial judge viewed the premises. Whether or not the knowledge thus obtained should be given the effect of substantive testimony, we do not determine. We must consider, however, that he was thereby better enabled to understand and apply the evidence of the respective parties on the subject under consideration. Our province in reviewing the testimony is to ascertain whether or not the -findings of facts are supported by the evidence. If they are, we cannot interfere by substituting our judgment for that of. the trial court upon the weight of the evidence in the'-case. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Pryor, 25 Colo. 540. The testimony is very voluminous, and to notice it in detail would be impracticable. Its review1 will, therefore, be limited to a mention of those matters which tend to support the finding of the trial judge, that Medaño creek is the source of supply of Big and Little Spring creeks, for the purpose of ascertaining if there is sufficient legál evidence.to support the finding on this subject.

Medaño creek rises near the summit on the westerly side of the Sangre de. Cristo range, arid flows southwesterly until, .near the mouth of- the canyon from which it issues, it is intercepted by a range of hills-known as the Great Sand Dunes, from which point its course is along the base of those hills on the east side, nearly south until it reaches the south, end where it flows almost west. In this course it unites [322]*322with the Mosca creek, a small stream rising in the same range of mountains- When the water is low it disappears in the sand of the channel at the base of these hills, sometimes at one point and sometimes at another, regulated in a great degree by the volume of water flowing.. The sand hills begin at the base of the main range, and at or near this point are several hundred feet in height, several miles in width and gradually diminish in altitude and width as they extend south, until merged in the San Luis valley. Big and Little Spring creeks rise on the west side of these hills, in a comparatively sandy level immediately adjoining their base. From the point where Medaño creek is deflected in its general course, to -the source of Big Spring creek, is about seven miles southwesterly, and from the point where the waters of the Medaño ordinarily disappear, when high, the source of Little Spring creek is distant about three miles, almost west. The sources of Big and Little Spring creeks are relatively almost north and south of each other, and distant about three miles.

Witnesses state that many years ago a well defined channel of the Medaño was plainly visible to the source of Little Spring creek, and that they had seen water running in this channel very close to the head of the latter creek. One witness in particular states that in 1863 or 1864 he had seen the water of Medaño running to Little Spring creek. Other witnesses state that this occurred again in 1895. Witnesses also state that a well defined depression, like an old channel of a water-bed, extends from near the source of Big Spring creek in a northwesterly direction, for a distance of about two miles, which, if continued in its course, would strike, after passing through, the sand hills, about the mouth of Medaño canyon; that when[323]*323ever the water of Medaño creek diminishes, the waters of Big and Little Spring creeks also decline after a lapse of two or three weeks from the time when the waters of the Medaño become low; that when the Medaño is muddy, the waters of Big and Little Spring creeks would also.be riley, or show discoloration. Witnesses also state that since the diversion by defendants from the head waters of Medaño creek, there has been a marked decrease in the flow of Big and Little Spring creeks. The general drainage of the country, with the exception of the Medaño, is towards the west. According to surveys, the most rapid line of decent from near the mouth of Medaño canyon is in the direction of Big Spring creek.

The theory of plaintiff is that the San Luis valley was at one time a great lake, the eastern shore of which was near the present sources of Big and Little Spring creeks; that when the lake disappeared, the sands of its bed were blown across the valley by the prevailing westerly winds, and deposited upon the wash and drift extending from the base of the main range immediately adjoining the mouth of the canyon of the Medaño, and constituting the divide between that stream .and Sand creek on the north, and Mosca on the south; that before this deposit occurred, the natural channel of Medaño creek extended through this wash and drift in the same general direction of the canyon, which would carry .it on a line with ■ the present channel of Big Spring creek; that the accumulation of Sand in its original channel finally became so great that the waters were unable to longer cut their way through and over it on the surface, but that they continued to flow or percolate through the course sand, gravel and boulders composing .the [324]*324original bed of the creek, and finally emerged as the source of Big Spring creek; that the obstruction of the old channel prevented all the waters from pass-. ing into the valley in that way, and as the sands gradually accumulated and raised, the excess water flowed over them in a general southerly direction along the eastern base of the sand hills, uniting with Mosca creek, and resulting in the creation of Little Spring creek; that the continuous flow of Mosca creek upon the surface obstructed by the sand causes, and that the flow of Little Spring creek is practically on and over the ancient bed of Mosca creek. Scientific writers on the geological formations and conditions of the San Luis valley tend to support this theory. The testimony of the witnesses with respect to the present physical conditions within their own recollection also corroberate it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Medano Ditch Co. v. Adams, 29 Colo. 317 (Colo. 1902).

29 Colo. 317 (Medano Ditch Co. v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation District
671 P.2d 1294 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1983)
Thomas v. National State Bank
628 P.2d 188 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1981)
Bobrick v. Taylor
467 P.2d 822 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1970)
Alcove's, Inc. v. Pehr
412 P.2d 469 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1966)
San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Hazard
157 P.2d 144 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1945)
Faden v. Hubbell
28 P.2d 247 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1933)
Olney Springs Drainage District v. Auckland
267 P. 605 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1928)
Van Buskirk v. Red Buttes Land & Livestock Co.
156 P. 1122 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1916)
Weiland v. Reorganized Catlin Consolidated Canal Co.
61 Colo. 125 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1916)
Comstock v. Fort Morgan Reservoir & Irrigation Co.
151 P. 929 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1915)
Rumsey v. New York Life Insurance
59 Colo. 71 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1915)
Wolff v. Pomponia
52 Colo. 109 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1911)
White v. Nuckolls
49 Colo. 170 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1910)
Petterson v. Payne
43 Colo. 184 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1908)
McCormick v. Parriott
33 Colo. 382 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1905)