313, 317 (9th Cir. 1974), aff'd on other grounds, Cappaert, 426 U.S. at 142, 96 S.Ct. 2062. But on appeal, the Supreme Court did not reach this question. See Cappaert, 426 U.S. at 142, 96 S.Ct. 2062. In that case, the peculiarities of the hydrological forms led the Court to conclude as a question of fact that the reserved water in a cavern pool was surface water, not groundwater. Id. 9 . Although the district court found that the groundwater contained in the Coachella Valley aquifer "does not 'add to, contribute to or support’ any surface stream from which the Tribe diverts water,” that does not mean that the hydrological cycle in the Coachella Valley has been severed. See U.S. Geological Surv., Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource, U.S.G.S. Circular 1139 at 9-10 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, we note that surface water is used
recognizing presumption that all groundwater is tributary and subject to prior appropriation doctrine as part of the waters of the stream recognizing the need for reasonable preservation of the natural environment and allowing minimum stream flow and natural lake surface level and volume appropriations on behalf of the people of the state of colorado for that purpose holding that an ordinance regulating dredging and pit excavating was a valid exercise of police power wherein it prevented the defendant from further excavation below the water table recognizing a connection between surface and groundwater even where the water table falls below the stream bed recognizing the position of the ose that the rio grandes surface waters are fully appropriated and that new surface water appropriations are not allowed