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

several commissioners were appointed that summer, the first real
steps toward implementing the Colorado system were taken in July and
August, when referees were appointed in Water Districts No. 6 and
No. 3 to begin taking testimony on ditch priorities.

I

The most important developments occurred along the Poudre in
District No.3. Harry N. Haynes, the referee, took testimony in
Fort Collins and Greeley and heard evidence from surveyors and civil
engineers as to the size, grade, and capacity of the rival ditches
in those localities. He finished this task in January and submitted
his report in April after an unusually dry winter. To everyone's
surprise and great consternation, Judge Victor A. Elliot of the
Second Judicial District refused to issue a decree. The judge be-
lieved that the 1879 act had created an unconstitutional procedure
by requiring the court to act without the customary suits on the
court dockets or personal service of process on the owners of rights
affected by the decree. The Greeley farmers petitioned to the supreme
court for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Elliot to comply with the
terms of the act.

I

I

I

I

I

Without a decree fixing the rights on th~ river, the conflict
between Greeley and Fort Collins intensified during the dry summer
of 1880. Although a water commissioner was appointed by the governor,
there was little he could do in the absence of a legal record of
priorities.

II

The farmers again turned to the legislature to create a work-
able system for adjudicating their rights along the river. Their
anxiety was heightened by the continued construction of large irriga-
tion canals by corporation ditch companies using foreign capital. The
campaign for seats in the legislature revolved largely around irriga-
tion issues.

I

I

I

Anticipating the supreme court's decision sustaining Judge
Elliot's refusal to proceed under the 1879 act,130 Senator James A.
Freeman introduced legislation into the Third General Assembly which
met the objections of the legal profession and largely completed the
statutory framework recommended by the farmers' convention of 1878.

The 1881 legislation13l provided that adjudication of priorities
of ditches and canals, and also reservoirs, was to be commenced by
petition of any claimant of an appropriation. Prioritie.s were to be
set by decree based on the time of construction of the ditch. Appar-
ently, a decree could be obtained on the basis of the commencement: of
such construction; the act provided that the court should find,
among other elements, "the time spent, severally, in such construc:tion
and enlargement, or extension, and re-enlargement, if any, the dili-
gence with which the work was in each case presented, the nature of
the work as to difficulty of construction, and all such other fac1:s

I'

1 '

I

I

II-l9

1

I

/'