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

The bill was introduced as H.B. 22 and was substantially revised
by the House irrigation committee which included L. C. Mead, who had
chaired the December convention, and H. P. Bromwell, a lawyer, who
had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. The priority
section was rewritten to provide that the right attached to ditches
rather than land. The committee had heard arguments from the likes
of Benjamin Eaton, who was constructing the giant Larimer and Weld
Canal, in support of this change.

I

I

I

Another significant alteration in the bill, the work of Lawyer
Bromwell, was in the method of determining priorities. Bromwell's
amendments established the basis of the Colorado doctrine of adjudi-
cation of priorities by the courts, although, as will be seen, it
gave the courts an innovative role in this regard.

I

I

Significant opposition to the bill, interestingly enough, came
in the Senate from another lawyer, L. R. Rhodes of Fort Collins. He
espoused the view held by many at the time that no water legislation
was required and that the courts were the proper forum to determine
rights in the water. The bill passed despite his efforts.129 It pro-
vided for the creation of water districts under the supervision of a
water commissioner who was to divide the water according to priori-
ties and the determination of priorities on a water district basis by
the district court. Each court was to function as a quasi-administra-
tive agency by automatically appointing a referee to take testimony
from water users as to the dates and capacities of their ditches,
without waiting for a lawsuit to initiate the proceedings. The court
was then to "examine" the report of the testimony prepared by the
referee and issue a decree determining all priorities in the dis-
trict. No provision was made for measuring stream flow or register-
ing future appropriations, nor was an office of a commissioner of
irrigation created. There was a provision guaranteeing the right to
store unappropriated water in reservoirs, with plans to be approved
by the county commissioners, but no adjudication of storage priori-
ties was included. The right to introduce water from a reservoir
into a stream, and take it out again, minus a deduction for seepage
and evaporation, was also provided. The county commissioners were to
fix the rates to be charged by ditch companies and the water of
ditches was to be prorated among users in time of shortage "so that
all owners and purchasers shall suffer from the deficiency . . . each
in proportion" to his entitlement.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

b. The 1881 Act.

I

The summer of 1879 was very dry, leading farmers in the South
Platte basin to petition the governor to appoint water commissioners
to administer what water was flowing in the streams. Although

I

lI-18

I
I