1313 Sherman Street, Room 821
Denver, CO 80203

Internal Guide to Understanding “Waste” and the
Determination of “Waste” Associated with Irrigation, as that
Term is Used in the Definition of Beneficial Use
I.

Definitions

Beneficial Use - The use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under
reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation
is lawfully made. Section 37-92-103(4) C.R.S.
Duty of Water - A term of art that is not quantitatively defined for any particular use. However, in
concept, it is described as the amount of water that needs to be diverted to accomplish a specific
beneficial use, without waste. (Colorado Water Institute - Special Report No. 25)
Efficiency - The ratio of the amount of water consumed by a specific beneficial use to the amount
of water that must be diverted to achieve the beneficial use. (Colorado Water Institute - Special
Report No. 25)
Usufructuary – The right to use someone else’s property (Colorado Division of Water Resources,
Diversion Records Standards Version 1.7) “A water right is a usufructuary right, affording its holder
the right to use and enjoy the property of another without impairing its substance.” Burlington
Ditch Reservoir & Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist., 256 P.3d 645, 661 (Colo. 2011).
Wasteway or wastegate – A gate along a ditch bank used to remove water from a ditch.
II. Relevant Statutes Regarding Waste and the State Engineer’s Responsibility to Address
Waste
37-81-101(1)(b) - It is also recognized that it has been the continuing historical policy of the state
of Colorado to conserve and prevent waste of its water resources to provide adequate supplies of
water necessary to insure the continued health, welfare, and safety of all of its citizens.
37-84-101 - The owners of any ditch for irrigation or other purposes shall carefully maintain the
embankments thereof so that the waters of such ditch may not flood or damage the premises of
others, and shall make a tail ditch so as to return the water in such ditch with as little waste as
possible into the stream from which it was taken.
37-84-107 - The owner of any irrigating or mill ditch shall carefully maintain and keep the
embankments thereof in good repair and prevent the water from wasting.

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 2

37-84-108(1) - During the summer season a person shall not run through his or her irrigating ditch
any greater quantity of water than is absolutely necessary for irrigating, domestic, and stock
purposes to prevent the wasting and useless discharge and running away of water.
37-84-108(2) - A person using an irrigating ditch or ditch system may use a tail ditch to return water
to the stream in variable amounts as necessary to facilitate efficient operation of the ditch and
delivery of water to persons served by the ditch or ditch system. The state engineer shall not
require the delivery of any minimum amount of such water, except as required by court decree.
Nothing in this section limits the state engineer's authority to administer water rights to prevent
waste.
37-90-110(1)(b) - To require both flowing and non-flowing wells to be so constructed and
maintained as to prevent waste of groundwaters through leaky wells, casings, pipes, fittings,
valves, or pumps, either above or below the land surface;
37-92-102(1)(a) - It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state of Colorado that all water in or
tributary to natural surface streams, not including nontributary groundwater as that term is defined
in section 37-90-103, originating in or flowing into this state have always been and are hereby
declared to be the property of the public, dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject
to appropriation and use in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of article XVI of the state constitution
and this article.
37-92-103(4) – Beneficial use means the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and
appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which
the appropriation is lawfully made.
37-96-102(c) - It is the policy of the state to promote the conservation and efficient use of water
and to prevent the waste of this valuable resource.
37-92-502 - Orders as to waste, diversion, distribution of water. (1) The state engineer or the
division engineers shall issue to the owners of water rights and to the users of waters of the state
such orders as are necessary to implement the provisions of section 37-92-501. . . (2)(a) Each
division engineer shall order the total or partial discontinuance of any diversion in his division to
the extent that the water being diverted is not necessary for application to a beneficial use . . .
37-92-103(4) - “Beneficial use” means the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and
appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which
the appropriation is lawfully made.

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 3

III. Purpose
The waters of the state are of limited supply and are subject to ever increasing demands. The
continuation of Colorado's economic prosperity is dependent on adequate supplies of water being
available for future uses. To this end, it is the policy of the state to promote the conservation and
efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of this valuable resource.
The objective of this guideline is to help officials of the Division of Water Resources (DWR)
determine when water is being wasted and what actions should be taken when waste is discovered.
In determining waste there are two common types of waste that should be considered: (1) waste
associated with the conveyance of water to its place of use (e.g. via pipelines or ditches) and (2)
waste in the application of water to its beneficial use (i.e. the irrigation system). When the
amount of water diverted is not necessary for its conveyance and application to beneficial use, the
result is wasting of water.
Statutes provide that a person shall not run through his or her ditch any greater quantity of water
than is absolutely necessary for irrigation, domestic, and stock purposes to prevent the wasting and
useless discharge and running away of water, Section 37-84-108(1) C.R.S. Furthermore, the waters
of the state are declared to be the property of the public, dedicated to the use of the people of the
state, thus the people of the state have a usufructuary right to beneficially use its waters. For this
reason, the people of the state have a right to divert water and apply it to beneficial use but do
not have a right to divert water and waste it. As the administrative agent for the distribution and
use of water of the state, statutes authorize DWR take those actions necessary to assure waste is
not occurring including but not limited to the issuance of orders to prevent waste.
There are also other private and public benefits for a water user to divert only that amount of
water needed to accomplish its intended beneficial use. Some examples are:
●
●
●

Diverting more water than is necessary for beneficial use will unnecessarily deplete
streamflows, which can affect the natural environment, compact compliance, and the
amount of water available to other water users.
Applying more water than necessary to wet the root zone, regardless of application method,
can result in undesirable leaching of nutrients into the stream system, which can affect
water quality.
Some crops experience a reduced yield when water is applied in excess of the full irrigation
requirement and unwanted crops (i.e. slough grass) may flourish in over-irrigated meadows.

IV. Waste Defined
“[W]ater users have a right and responsibility to engage in reasonably efficient water practices.”
Ready Mix Conc. CO. v. FRICO, 115P.3d 638, 645 n. 4 (2005). “Wasting water by diverting water
when not needed for beneficial use, or running more water than is reasonably needed for
application to beneficial use, is ‘waste.’” Id.

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 4

In evaluating waste, it should be recognized that excess water and water that is wasted may be
entirely different things. Because irrigation is not 100 percent efficient, some excess water is to
be expected and some excess water can be beneficial. For example, irrigators may schedule water
to be applied in excess of the crop irrigation requirement so that unwanted salts can be leached
below the root zone to improve soil tilth. On the other hand, if too much water is applied to an
irrigated field, crop yields can be reduced. That portion of water that is in excess of the crop
irrigation requirement and leaching ratio can be considered water that is wasted because it results
in no benefit, and furthermore, can be harmful to the production of a crop.
Water that is diverted in excess of what is required to accomplish the intended beneficial use is
considered wasted and may be curtailed by DWR. Water that is wasted and causing damage to
someone’s property may be pursued by the injured party as a civil matter, but ultimately waste
involves water use subject to administration by DWR.
V.

Understanding Why Water May Be Diverted but Not Needed or Beneficially Used

There are various reasons why a water user may choose to divert more water than is needed. Some
reasons are not valid reasons and usually constitute waste and others arguably are valid and do not
constitute waste. One example of a reason for diverting more water than is needed that is
generally not valid is that a person may be concerned that if they do not use their water right they
will lose it or its value will be diminished in a subsequent sale. As a result, someone may choose to
divert more water than they can beneficially use for the sole purpose of maintaining a record of
higher diversions. There is a misperception by some that by maximizing the amount of water
diverted, regardless of the need, one can enhance or preserve the magnitude and value of a water
right in a future transfer or protect it from some other reduction such as through an abandonment
proceeding. The value of a water right is based on its priority and its historical consumptive use,
and though the amount of water diverted plays a role in how much water is available for the plants
to consume, the plants can only consume a finite amount of water. Additionally, any amount of
water diverted in excess of what is required to accomplish the intended beneficial use should not
be attributed to diversion under the water right. Instead, these amounts should be recorded as
unauthorized diversions to be excluded from any historical use analysis and where appropriate, as
further explored below, such diversion should be reduced. As a result, the water right holder is not
actually protecting the full amount of their water right because they would not avoid potential
reductions or abandonment due to unauthorized diversions. The Colorado Water Institute, Special
Report No. 25 describes this issue in great detail. http://cwi.colostate.edu/publications/SR/25.pdf
Ultimately, diverting more water than can be beneficially used to avoid abandonment is not
considered an acceptable practice and will generally be considered a wasteful practice.
Another reason for diverting more water than is needed that would generally be considered not
valid is when a water user diverts more water than is needed based on the mere fact that they can.
For example, a water user with a senior water right in priority to divert might continue to divert

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 5

regardless of need, or worse yet a senior water right holder may request DWR to continue a call so
as to allow the continued diversion of the senior water right while keeping other upstream juniors
from maximizing the beneficial use of the water. However, if the water commissioner suspects this
to be the case, the call should be removed. Diverting more water than can be beneficially used
because a person can is not considered an acceptable practice and will generally be considered a
wasteful practice.
However, there are reasons why a person may divert more water than is needed that could be
considered valid and not constituting waste. For example, a person may choose to divert more
water than is needed for labor and/or cost-saving reasons. If an irrigator flood irrigates, then
moving sets or moving water to different parts of a field takes time. In many instances, irrigating is
a seven-day-per-week endeavor. Additionally, many irrigators opt to forgo moving a set in the
middle of the night. Rather than irrigation on 6-hour sets, and move water 4 times a day, an
irrigator may elect to run water on 12-hour sets and change water in the morning and evening.
Even more problematic is when sets are moved only once every couple days. Some irrigators don’t
have the time or financial ability to make irrigating their full time job or hire someone to do it. To
overcome this labor requirement, the irrigator may have the option to install sprinklers, but the
cost of such may be prohibitive. In some areas of the State, not investing time into moving water is
not possible due to limited water supply; whereas in other parts of the state, where water is
plentiful, it may be possible for an irrigator to not have to efficiently move the water or change
sets more often. Frequently, this practice results in waste. Diverting more water than can be
beneficially used because of the labor involved in diverting less water but requiring more time and
labor to do so may or may not be considered an acceptable practice. Regardless an irrigator has
the responsibility and duty to divert only that amount needed and is responsible for being a good
steward of the resource.
Another example where diverting more water than needed may not constitute waste is the practice
of winter irrigation. The practice of winter irrigation, which is still sometimes utilized in some
areas of the state, enables irrigators to apply water (though in excess of the immediate need) and
retain it to the extent of the soil moisture holding capacity within the root zone for later beneficial
use supporting crop growth, during the growing season. For example, in the Arkansas River valley
the practice of winter irrigation was well established prior to the construction of the Fryingpan Arkansas Project which enabled storage of winter flows for later release and application to use. As
long as the water diverted can aide in the growth and greening of a crop and does not result in
waste, the practice of such irrigation would be considered an acceptable practice.
VI. Waste in Conveying and Applying Water
The goal in any diversion of water should be to divert and convey that amount of water, and only
that amount of water, needed to accomplish the intended beneficial use. Beneficial use is defined
as “the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 6

practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made.”
Section 37-92-103(4), C.R.S.
It is common that both the conveyance and application of water will have a return flow component
because irrigation systems are not 100-percent efficient. Some inefficiencies are unavoidable
while some are not. Diverting more water than is reasonably needed to convey and apply it to
beneficial use to meet the consumptive use of the irrigated crops results is waste.
A.

Waste in Conveying Water
A conveyance system delivers water from the point of diversion to the place where it is
applied to beneficial use. How efficient a conveyance system delivers water to its place
of use can depend on many factors. Some loss of water through seepage or
evapotranspiration and some amount of water at the tail end of a ditch may be
reasonably expected.
Some conveyance systems are equipped with wasteways or wastegates. These wasteways
may be used by operators in a manner where they err on the side of taking plenty of
water and spilling it down a wasteway unused if it is not needed or they can provide
flexibility for water users to turn on and off their lateral headgates without requiring
immediate adjustments to the river headgate. On their face, these practices would be
considered waste; however each particular circumstance should be evaluated to
determine if the same beneficial use of the water can be accomplished by diverting less
water or by not utilizing wasteways in such manners. Typically, the purpose of wasteways
is to accommodate short-term adjustments or operational needs, including operation for
emergency purposes, to adjust for diurnal effects or other erratic rapid changes, or to
allow for more precise diversions where the wasteway is located immediately down ditch
of the headgate but upstream of the measuring flume to return the unneeded water
directly to the stream.
To be considered reasonably efficient, a conveyance system should not have an
unreasonable amount of seepage, should not cause overtopping of ditch embankments,
should not have an unreasonable amount of water running through a wasteway, and
should not have an unreasonable amount of tail water. Diversions of water that may
result in water running through wasteways or through the tail end of the ditch may
include, but are not limited to:
1.

Water diverted down a ditch for the purpose of “pushing” water to its intended
place of use. This additional water is often referred to as “push water” and can
result in water not being applied to a use. When additional water is diverted down a
ditch to “push” it through the ditch, the results may be an application of too much
water to the end use, the necessity of wasteways along the ditch to return unneeded
water back to a stream system, or excess water discharging out the tail end of the
ditch. Depending on the circumstance, this practice could be considered wasteful.

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 7

This conveyance “push” water can be distinguished from application “push” water
used to get water across a field.
2.

B.

Additional water diverted through the ditch to allow for delivery down laterals or
pumping of water from the ditch. For example, if an invert of a lateral headgate sits
six inches off the bed of a ditch, enough water must be run through the ditch to
assure water can be diverted through the lateral. The same holds true for a pump
where a pump may only be able to operate with a certain depth of water in the
ditch. Again, diversions such as these may result in a ditch equipped with wasteways
being used to evacuate unneeded water or excess water reaching the tail end of the
ditch, both of which practices could be considered wasteful. To avoid having to
divert this additional water, check structures can be placed in the ditch to raise
water levels.

Waste in Applying Water
Application efficiency can be thought of as how well water is being applied to achieve
the beneficial use. In the instance of irrigation, it is how well someone is applying water
to their irrigated ground. There are different means of applying water to irrigation use,
each with different levels of efficiency. The means of irrigation can range from various
systems of flood irrigation, which is considered less efficient than sprinkler irrigation,
which in turn is less efficient than drip irrigation. None of these methods are 100 percent
efficient though drip irrigation can come close. This guide is not intended to recommend
one irrigation method over another.
Over-watering or over application of water may be a significant cause of waste in any
irrigation system. No matter how well an irrigation system is designed, if more water is
applied than can be beneficially used by the crop, efficiency will suffer. Ideally, an
irrigation system would apply water in a completely uniform manner so that each part of
the irrigated area receives the same amount of water at the right time and in the right
amount as needed by the crop. In many flood irrigated meadows, uniformity is very
difficult and can be the cause for over-watering as irrigators pond water up in some areas
to get the water level high enough in the field to get all higher spots in the ground
surface wet. Even then however, once the irrigated area has been fully covered, the
continued diversion and application of the water may not be necessary and may result in
unnecessary evaporation from the ponded areas.

VII. How to determine when water is being wasted
A.

Conveyance of Water
i. How much water at the tail end of a ditch is too much? This is a judgment call that
should be made by DWR on a case by case basis. If the water commissioner can make
adjustments to a diversion with no risk of depriving the irrigated land of the water

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 8

necessary to accomplish the consumptive use of the plants being irrigated, then the
amount of water at the tail end of the ditch is not reasonable and is waste. Section
37-84-108(1), C.R.S. states,
during the summer season a person shall not run through his or her irrigating
ditch any greater quantity of water than is absolutely necessary for irrigating,
domestic, and stock purposes to prevent the wasting and useless discharge and
running away of water.
In some instances, a ditch system may require sufficient head to efficiently convey
water out of the stream and into a headgate. In which case it may not be possible to
reduce the diversion at the headgate while not depriving the irrigated land of the
water necessary to accomplish the consumptive use. Section 37-84-108(2), C.R.S.
explicitly allows for some amount of water to return to the stream system through
the tail end of a ditch. This section provides:
a person using an irrigating ditch or ditch system may use a tail ditch to return
water to the stream in variable amounts as necessary to facilitate efficient
operation of the ditch and delivery of water to persons served by the ditch or
ditch system.
However, this statute goes on further to provide that:
Nothing in this section limits the state engineer’s authority to administer water
rights to prevent waste.
ii.

Generally, wasteways or wastegates are not to be operated in such a way as to
control the amount of water conveyed to beneficial use, rather the headgate is to be
operated for this purpose. Typically, wasteways or wastegates should only be
operated to accommodate short-term adjustments or operational needs, or to allow
for more precise diversion where the wasteway is located immediately down ditch of
the headgate and upstream of the measuring device to return the water directly to
the stream. If a wasteway or wastegate is being used for any other purpose, then the
water running through the wasteway may be considered waste. Only in limited
circumstances might there be an acceptable need for a wasteway further down the
ditch. For example, if return flows or seepage accrues to a ditch, the operation of a
wasteway may be necessary to evacuate this water from the ditch and return it to
the natural stream.

iii. If a ditch is overtopping and is not capable of conveying all the water diverted, then
the amount of water overtopping the ditch is considered waste. Section 37-84-101,
C.R.S.
B.

Application of Water
The determination of whether water applied to an irrigated field is being wasted is a
more complicated determination. DWR should be familiar with common irrigation

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 9

systems and understand the limitations of each. Regardless of the irrigation system, an
irrigator should:
1.

Have some method to distribute water across a field. This may be accomplished
with cuts in the ditch bank, spiles, siphon tubes, gated pipe, borders, sprinklers,
emitters or drip hoses. Distributing water over a field allows water the opportunity
to infiltrate into the ground and become available for crop consumption. If an
irrigator is not making an attempt to distribute water over an area, and has a single
point of discharge of a large amount of water onto a field, then high amounts of
surface returns are expected; in which case water is more likely to be wasted.

2.

Frequently move irrigation sets across the field. How often an irrigation set is moved
can vary depending, for example, on soil type, slope, time of irrigation season, and
water availability. Water may reach the end of the field before a set is moved and
create runoff (e.g., furrow irrigated fields). In furrow irrigation, this is not
necessarily a waste of water. However, excessive runoff may be a waste and an
irrigator may be encouraged to reduce the flow rate delivered down each furrow. If
runoff is abundant in sprinkler or drip irrigation, then the amount of water being
applied is in excess of the infiltration rate and is being wasted.

3.

Avoid long periods of pooling of water. When water has been pooling on a field for
days, the amount of water being applied is exceeding the infiltration or percolation
rate of the soil resulting in water that is not beneficially used and lost to
evaporation. For this reason, if there is standing water in a field for days, water is
likely being wasted.

4.

Have a way to collect, capture and return surface return flows to the natural stream.
By way of example an irrigator should make a tail ditch so as to capture and return
water with as little waste as possible into the stream from which it was taken.

Ultimately, if the water commissioner after consulting with the irrigator can make
adjustments to a diversion with no risk of depriving the crop, then the amount of
diverted water that can be reduced is generally considered waste.
VIII. Actions to take when water is being wasted
Regardless of whether there is sufficient water available in the stream system to meet the
needs of all those diverting water or when there is no one being injured, water may not be
wasted (refer to 37-84-108(1) C.R.S.). For this reason, the same actions should be taken
whether or not the stream system is under administration and whether or not someone is being
injured as a result of the wasteful diversions.

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 10

A.

Conveyance of Water
i. If a water commissioner determines that water is being wasted as described in
VII.A.i. above, the water user should be contacted and informed that their current
diversions are wasteful and the diversions at the headgate must be reduce to the
extent that water is no longer being wasted.
ii.

If a wasteway or wastegate is found to be running water as the result of operating in
a manner other than to accommodate short-term adjustments or operational needs,
to allow for more precise diversions where the wasteway is located immediately
down ditch of the headgate yet upstream of the measuring device to return water
directly to the stream, or to evacuated captured return flows or seepage, the water
users of the ditch should be contacted and informed that their current diversions are
considered wasteful and the diversions at the headgate must be reduced to the
extent water is no longer being wasted.

iii. If a ditch is found to be overtopping, the water commissioner shall require
immediate adjustments of the headgate to the extent the ditch is no longer being
overtopped.
Where tailwater or water running through a wasteway regularly exists, regardless of the
quantity, the division engineer may want to consider issuing an order to the owner to
install measurement and continuous recording devices (under DWR’s authority provided in
Section 37-92-502(5)(a), C.R.S) and the water commissioner should make records of such
water so that the amount of water applied to beneficial use can be determined by
subtracting the amount returned to the river unused from the amount of water diverted.
These data are particularly important when a water right is subsequently changed in a
water court proceeding. Without records of water returned back unused, the diversion
records will make it appear that more water was historically applied to beneficial use
than what actually occurred. None of this is to be construed as allowing excessive
amounts of water running through the tail end of the ditch.
B.

Application of Water
If the water commissioner has determined that the application of water is clearly
wasteful, the water users on the ditch should be contacted and informed that the current
diversions are resulting in the wasting of water and the diversions at the headgate must
be reduced to the extent water is no longer being wasted. Ultimately, if the water
commissioner can make adjustments to reduce a diversion with no risk of depriving the
irrigated land of the water needed to grow the intended crop, then the headgate should
be adjusted to reduce such diversions.

If despite verbal instruction from the water commissioner to curtail, the water users refuse to
comply or if they resist or defy efforts by the water commissioner to adjust their diversions, a
written order of the division engineer may be necessary and it may become necessary to utilize

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer

 Page 11

the provisions of 37-92-503, C.R.S. to enforce such orders. The authority of the state and
division engineers lies in their ability to issue orders. Orders are formal communications that
direct a water user to take action. All verbal orders shall be followed up in writing pursuant to
37-92-502, C.R.S. The key to any action taken by DWR as it relates to waste is understanding
why a water user is diverting water or irrigating a piece of land the way they are. For
example, there may be a situation where an irrigator initially diverts more water to get it
across a field for the first time in the irrigation season. Once the water is across the field
however the diversions are reduced. Ultimately, the division engineer should consider all the
evidence collected by the water commissioner suggesting waste is occurring, and if after
review of the evidence the division engineer agrees that waste is occurring an order should be
issued.
From the case of Baumgartner v. Stremel, 496 P.2d 705; 1972 we learned that evidence of
using a greater quantity of water than is necessary to accomplish the intended purpose is
necessary to sustain a contention of waste. With this in mind, the water commissioner should
collect as much information as possible supporting their contention that waste is occurring so
as to validate an order issued by the division engineer.
Approved this 30th day of June, 2017.

_______________________
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Director/State Engineer

1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor   Robert Randall, Executive Director   Dick Wolfe, State Engineer