Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003 J" I <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />state is no longer open to question.'J-29 <br /> <br />"The City of Denver has thus been able to undertake interbasin transfers <br /> <br /> <br />without complying with the area of origin protection statute. Although the <br /> <br /> <br />constitutionality of the Colorado Area 01 Origin protection statute has been <br /> <br /> <br />questioned, the issue has never been resolved by the Colorado Supreme <br />Court.J-30 <br /> <br />"The Colorado sta tute appears to differ from California's area of origin <br /> <br /> <br />protection statutes in that the needs of the basin of origin have to be <br /> <br /> <br />determined at the same time the export project is planned. If the <br /> <br /> <br />exporting basin's needs are underestimated, there would be no possibility of <br /> <br />recapture. On the other hand, if the needs were overestimated, facilities <br />might be constructed that would never be used and water would be reserved <br /> <br />that could never be put to beneficial use. <br /> <br />"Another distinguishing feature of the Colorado statute is the provision that <br /> <br /> <br />the expense of water for users within the natural basin shall not be <br /> <br /> <br />increased by an out-of-basin diversion. This provision poses problems <br /> <br /> <br />because of the obvious difficulty future generations will have in determining <br /> <br /> <br />wha t the pr ice of water would have been had there been no diversion. <br /> <br />Texas <br /> <br />"In 1965 the Texas legislature enacted a statute that required the Texas <br /> <br /> <br />Water Board, the water planning agency for that state, to reject any water <br /> <br /> <br />plan that: <br /> <br />-25- <br />