Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado · 1882 · Property

PropertyWater rightsPrior appropriationRiparian rightsIrrigationprior appropriationriparian rights rejectedbeneficial use

Facts

Plaintiff claimed ownership of water from the south fork of the St. Vrain Creek by prior appropriation, diverting it by ditch to James Creek and then to Left Hand Creek for irrigation of lands adjacent to Left Hand Creek. Defendants owned lands on or near the St. Vrain below the mouth of the south fork and claimed rights in that stream as landowners and, in some instances, by appropriation, though their pleadings did not sufficiently allege appropriations prior to plaintiff's diversion. In 1879 there was not enough water in the St. Vrain to supply both plaintiff's ditch and defendants' lands. Defendants tore out part of plaintiff's dam, and plaintiff brought this trespass action for damages and injunctive relief.

Issue

Whether Colorado follows common-law riparian rights or the doctrine of prior appropriation for water from natural streams, and whether a prior appropriator loses priority against later claimants because the diverted water is carried to lands adjacent to a different stream rather than used on lands bordering the source stream.

Rule

In Colorado, absent express statutory provision to the contrary, the common-law right of a riparian owner to the natural flow of a stream is inapplicable. The first appropriator of water from a natural stream for a beneficial purpose has a prior right to that water, subject to constitutional qualifications, to the extent of the appropriation, and that right does not depend on the location where the water is applied to beneficial use.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 1871, Elena Ruiz diverted part of a natural stream near Pueblo, Colorado, into a ditch and used it to irrigate hay fields for the next several seasons. In 1878, Martin Cole bought land bordering the same stream downstream and, during a dry year, claimed he was entitled to the stream's natural flow because his land touched the watercourse, even though he had never previously used the water.

Who has the superior right to the disputed water under the governing Colorado doctrine described here?

Explanation. Colorado rejects the common-law doctrine that a riparian owner is entitled to the natural flow merely because his land borders the stream. Absent an express statute to the contrary, the first appropriator of water from a natural stream for a beneficial purpose has a prior right to the extent of the appropriation. Because Elena appropriated first and used the water beneficially, Martin's later riparian ownership alone does not defeat her right. (Derived from Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co. (1882).)