Laserfiche WebLink
<br />33 <br /> <br />! <br />within' its own borders. Asked whether or not Colorado \1ould cut off the C-BT <br /> <br />to fulfill the Lee Ferry obli~ation in a time of drou~ht, Stone d~ain vehemently <br /> <br />defended the right of Colorado, or any other state, to reserve the power of <br /> <br />judgement as to the fate of its own projects, as long as it provided its share <br /> <br />of obligations as required by the guidlines to be established. Colorado's ct.ief <br /> <br />En~ineer of the Colorado Water Conservation Board said that reservoirs, and <br /> <br />not the suspension of o~erating projects, would provide for extra water in times <br /> <br />of need. (It should be remembered that it was the promis9 to the West slope <br /> <br />of Colorado that Green Mountain Reservoir would be constructed along with the C-BT <br /> <br />to provide them with water that helped to allay their 01;11 fears about th~ East slope <br /> <br />"stealing" their Cclorado River supply.) Nevertheless, Bishop again brought up <br /> <br />the idea of restricting transmountain diversions later in Meeting Five. In response, <br /> <br />Stone pointed out that some of these diversions in Colorado had been in place <br /> <br />since that 1890's, and that it would be ludicrous to attempt to restrict their <br />120 <br />operations or to shut them down. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stone here was most likely referring to a series of transmcuntain <br /> <br />diversions that were constructed and put to use in Colorado in the 1890's as a <br /> <br />result of the 1882 Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co. ruling. TIlis involved a ~ispute <br /> <br />between two groups of Colorado irrigators. The defendants were diverting water <br /> <br />out of a creel< and out of its natural basin to supplement their own water supply. <br /> <br />The plaintiffs saw this as an infringement upon their own rights in that tbey <br /> <br />were the ones living along the creek, and claimed that transbasin diverisons were <br /> <br />illegal. The court disagreed, and in accordance with the rule of prior appropri- <br /> <br />ation, ruled that transbasin diversions were not inherently ille~al. TIlis decision <br /> <br />implied that transrnountain diversions were also legal, provided that the diverters <br /> <br />121 <br />had a legitimate right in time to the water and were putting it to beneficial use. <br /> <br />As a result, a number of.transbasin and transmountain diversions were <br /> <br />.-.:/ <br />