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

1

.1

I

That meeting being sparsely attended, the participants decided
to call a statewide convention to make a more detailed recommendation
to the legislature. This convention opened in Denver on December 5,
1878, and was attended by about 50 farmers from the South Platte Valley.

I

An agenda committee, headed by David Boyd of Greeley, produced
a report quite similar to that of the October meeting. Two members
of the committee, reflecting a familiar attitude which was expressed
at the Constitutional Convention and which was also to influence the
ensuing events, opposed all legislation on water rights, preferring
to leave the matter to the courts.

I

1

Nevertheless, the convention proceeded to discuss the proposals.
While some form of centralized administrative control was generally
favored, there were differences of opinion as to its structure. A
commission similar to that established by the statute of 1861126 was
thought to involve excessive delay. The convention recommended that
the existing State Board of Agriculture assume the duties of Commis-'
sioner of Irrigation, as it considered separate offices to be too
expensive. 127

I

I

I

Some delegates expressed doubts about the feasibility of accur--
ately measuring stream flow. On hearing favorable accounts by several
people, including E. S. Nettleton, who was presently to become the
state engineer, a measurement provision was included. Also recom-
mended was a system of water districts to be administered by district
commissioners whose duties included collecting data concel~ing stre,lin
flow, maintaining records of the capacity and date of construction of
ditches, and dividing the water according to the temporal priorities
of these ditches. As farmers, the delegates to the convention
desired local administrative control as opposed to judicial determin-
ation of their rights.

I

I

I'

I

The convention included recommendations that the method of
obtaining rights-of-way for ditches be simplified, the pollution of
streams and ditches be prevented, and the storage of water in reser-
voirs be protected and encouraged.128 A committee was appointed to
draft a bill to be submitted to the legislature.

I'

The bill drafted by this committee (which was chaired by David
Boyd) generally incorporated the convention's recommendations. One:
issue is worth noting. There was a sharp difference of opinion among
the members of this committee as to whether priority of right attac:hed
to the land on its being irrigated or to the ditch on its being con-
structed. Generally speaking, the farmers favored the former
provision, the ditch companies the latter. By requiring water com--
missioners to prepare records of the application of the water to
the land, the committee espoused the farmers' view.

I

I"

I

11-17

I

I