University of Colorado Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Spring 1984

• Description: Plans and Studies: The Recent Quest for a Utopia in the Utilization of Colorado's Water Resources
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Other

1984] COLORADO'S WATER RESOURCES 411
predict the impact on the regional and national economy and on the
improvement of water management practices and methods.184
The Plan proposal recognized, but did not fully comprehend, the
social and environmental water values suggested by the Review
Draft of the National Water Commission Report and commented on
by the Report to Governor John A. Love on Certain Colorado Water
Law Problems.128 The report to Governor Love had explored
whether and how the state could "affect the present place or nature
of use of existing rights"'" and "how Colorado's water law could be
made" flexible enough to accomodate the non-economic values which
the public may hold,"187 specifically citing actions such as preserving
wild rivers, maintaining minimum stream flows and forbidding the
alteration of water courses without state consent.188 While the re-
port's overall conclusion was that non-economic values were difficult
to protect under then existing Colorado law, since its release Colo-
rado water law has recognized minimum stream flows188 and the
state's right to intervene in water court proceedings.'"
So far there have been remarkably few permanent impasses be-
tween environmental laws and water quantity allocation laws. Many
more loom on the horizon but a number of the long delays in the
development of water projects have as often been caused, to date, by
•
the lack of capital as by an environmental regulation. Even the fa-
mous snail darter dispute was finally resolved.'"l
In the mid-1970's, however, the conflict between development
and environmental regulation was stalling what little development
activity there was. In fact, elsewhere I have expressed the view that
the holding action was almost inevitable:
Compliance with these laws was difficult and confusing: their
interpretation was far from settled; proponents and oppo-
nents were probing for position, as well as for clarification of
these laws. Governments were issuing regulations, interpret-
ing the law, and holding hearings with an evident lack of
certainty about what environmental protections were needed,
124. Id. at 3.
125. Carlson,supra note 24 at 339.
126. Id.
127. Id. at 328.
128. Id.
• 129. See note 104,supra.
130. See Wadsworth v. Kuiper, 562 P.2d 1114 (Colo. 1977).
131. See October 13, 1982 amendment to 16 U.S.C.S. § 1539(i) which provides for
legislative direction to"consider the exemption" of the projects.