Concerning the Revised Abandonment List of Water Rights in Water Division 2 and Concerning the Protest of Nolan G…

Summary

The court affirmed denial of Harrison's water-right change application because he failed to prove the right's historic use and did not qualify for an exception to that requirement. It rejected his claim that this evidentiary requirement effected an unconstitutional taking because limiting a water right to established historic use prevents enlargement rather than depriving the holder of property. The court reversed the abandonment order because the stipulation required timely filing of an application reflecting historic use, not successful proof of historic use in the proceeding. No separate opinions were issued.