Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Colorado, 1882. Facts: Left Hand Ditch Co. (plaintiff) owned property along the banks of St. Vrain creek. Left Hand built a dam and ditch system that diverted water from St. Vrain creek to James creek, and from James creek to Left Hand creek. Coffin (defendant) owned land along the banks of St. Vrain creek downstream from Left Hand’s dam. The diversion created by Left Hand’s dam limited the amount of water available to irrigate Coffin’s land, so Coffin tore down part of the dam. Procedural History: Left Hand filed suit for damages in trespass and an injunction prohibiting Coffin from any further interference with Left Hand’s water diversions. The trial court ruled in favor of Left Hand and awarded damages compensating Left Hand for the damages done to the dam. Coffin appealed. Issue: Does the doctrine of riparian rights apply to water prior to the 1876 adoption of the prior appropriation doctrine by the Colorado Constitution? Holding: No, Colorado has, and continues to follow the doctrine of prior appropriation, which provides that the first party to put water to productive use gains an enforceable property right in the quantity of water used. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Reasoning: The first party to put water to productive use gains enforceable property rights in the quantity of water used, even if the water is put to use on land in a different watershed. Coffin argues that the doctrine of prior appropriation should not apply to his rights in the water of St. Vrain creek since he acquired title to his property prior to the time that the Colorado legislature passed a law implementing the doctrine of prior appropriation. The evidence establishes that Coffin did acquire his property prior to passage of the law, and that the grant of title to his property contained no reservation of water rights to any other party. As such, Coffin argues, his rights to the water of St. Vrain creek should be determined under the doctrine of riparian rights. To the contrary, the doctrine of riparian rights has never applied in Colorado. The doctrine of prior appropriation arose at the time of the first appropriation of water in the state of Colorado. While the doctrine of riparian rights may make sense in wet climates, the arid climate and soils of Colorado impart a significantly higher value to water in this region. Substantial investments have been made to divert scarce water resources and apply it to use in agriculture, thereby enhancing the value of previously infertile land. The government has a duty to uphold the expectations of security in those investments. A person desiring to use water upon land adjacent to a watercourse has no greater claim of right than one desiring to use the water upon some distant parcel. It is not uncommon in Colorado to find barren soil along a watercourse while fertile soil lies some distance away. Likewise, any given stream may be incapable of providing enough water to irrigate land within its riparian zone. Applying the doctrine of riparian rights would result in the waste of water on low quality soil while fertile lands are left uncultivated.