PUB00148

• Year: 1978
• Title: The Colorado Water Study Directions for the Future
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Description: The Colorado Water Study Directions for the Future
• Publications - Doc Type: Historical

I

I

I

d. Right-of-Way.

Th . h f . f h . t - III 1
e r1g t-o -way sect10n 0 . t e const1tu 10n was scarce y
debated in the convention. Given the longstanding, consistent
recognition of this principle in the early mining codes, statutes,
and in the important decision in Yunker v. Nichols,112 this is hardly
surprising. The only changes made in the first draft reported by
Chairman Plumb's committee were the insertion of the comp~nsation
provision and the recognition that a right-of-way could be condemned
for domestic purposes.I13

I

I

I

This section in the constitution is complemented by ~14 of
art. II, which provides that "private property shall not be taken for
private use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways
of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes, or ditches
on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling,
domestic, or sanitary purpose." There are indications that the word-
ing of this section may have been adapted from the Missouri Constitu-
tion of 1875.114

I

I

I

e. Rates Set by County Commissioners.

I

Another uncontroversial prov1s10n was that allowing boards of
county commissioners to set rates to be charged for the use of watE~r.
The lack of debate on this topic may be explained by the successful
operation of territorial statutes to this effect. lIS

I

There were some attempts at innovation. Mr. Bromwell introduced
a resolution on January 19, 1876, which would have included sections
in the constitution establishing the mode of determining these rates.116
Mr. Beck went further and suggested a provision which would have given
the legislature authority to prohibit "unjust monopolies of the
natural streams of the state, and extortion of the prices charged
for the use of the water taken therefrom."ll7 Mr. White would havl~
left the authority to set rates "inalienably in the state" and foro.
bidden the transfer of such power to any private corporation, company,
or person.118 None of these suggestions was acted upon, and this
section, the only direct expression of the convention's fear of cor-
porate monopolies, remained fairly mild.

I

I

I

I!'
:1

Indeed, the one substantive amendment to Plumb's first draft
was even more lenient. It provided that the commissioners would
only exercise this lower "when application is made to them by either
party interested."l 9 'With this amendment, this section was adopted
without debate, 21_3.120

I

I

II-IS

I

I