Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 37
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-82-102 (2026)

Priority of right to spring water

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All ditches constructed for the purpose of utilizing the waste, seepage, or spring waters of the state shall be governed by the same laws relating to priority of right as those ditches constructed for the purpose of utilizing the water of running streams; but the person upon whose land the seepage or spring waters first arise shall have the prior right to such waters if capable of being used upon his lands.

Source: L. 1889: p. 215, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3177. C.L. § 1637. CSA: C. 90, § 20. CRS 53: § 147-2-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-2-2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Mike & Jim Kruse P'ship v. Cotton, 2021 CO 6 (Colo. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mike & Jim Kruse P'ship v. Cotton, 2021 CO 6 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 3× “For that reason, we interpreted the Spring and Seepage Act, which is now codified at section 37-82-102, C.R.S. (2020), and which governs appropriations of “waste” and “seepage,” as inapplicable to waters that have already “reached the channel, or bed, of a natural stream.”
State v. Sw. Colorado Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 12× “[24] The state argues in its brief that section 37-82-102, C.R.S.1973, relating to the prior right of a landowner to nontributary seepage or spring waters arising on his land, makes sufficient though indefinite reference to other governing laws relating to priorities to cause…”
SRJ I VENTURE v. Smith Cattle, Inc., 820 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 8× “” Smith asserts that section 37-82-102,15 C.R.S. (1990), protects its undecreed rights in the seeps and springs arising on its lands from upstream depletion by the operation of Travelers’ wells.”
In Re Vought, 76 P.3d 906 (Colo. 2003). “[3] Stucker Mesa characterized the water sources as two springs: Big Dripper Spring and Little Dripper Spring.”
Vought v. Stucker Mesa Dom. Pipeline Co., 76 P.3d 906 (Colo. 2003). “2d 122, 123 (1967); § 37-82-102, 10 C.R.S. (2002)(landowner preference to water from natural springs on his property); § 37-82-103, 10 CRS.”
In the MATTER OF the Application for WATER RIGHTS OF the MIKE & JIM KRUSE P'ship IN SAGUACHE Cnty.. Mike & Jim Kruse P'ship, Applicant-Appellee v. Craig W. Cotten, Div. Eng'r, Water Div. 3 & Kevin G. Rein, State Eng'r, Opposer-Appellants, & The United States of Am. Fish & Wildlife Serv. & The Rio Grande Canal Water Users Ass'n, Opposer-Appellees, & Concerning S&T Farms, LLC, Intervenor-Appellee., 479 P.3d 893 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “For that reason, we interpreted the Spring and Seepage Act , which is now codified at section 37-82-102 , C.R.S. ( 2020 ) , and which governs appropriations of "waste" and "seepage," as inapplicable to waters that have already "reached the channel, or bed, of a natural stream.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.