University of Colorado Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Spring 1984

Home Browse Search

398 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55 projects to be built in the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. These states, with fewer people and • less capital, could then utilize their allocations of water under the Colorado River and Upper Colorado Compacts.47 Simultaneously, the burgeoning population along the Front Range east of the Continental Divide in Colorado sought water from the Blue, Roaring Fork and Eagle River Basins and individuals with big ideas even proposed such projects as John Elliot's dream of di- verting Yampa River water to the Front Range.48 Thus, if there was an ethic that drove Colorado water policy and development through the 1960's, it was to build projects, store water and preserve compact allocations, usually at federal expense. The federal government could, and did, put conditions on financing a large portion of this construction.48 But the money came mostly from the federal government. Denver's Blue River diversions and the Homestake Project of Colorado Springs and Aurora were notable ex- ceptions.At each step of the way through the 1960's, Colorado re- mained true to its historical role. The procedures for appropriating water were updated. The work of the Bureau of Reclamation was chronicled.60 Authorizations for federal projects were vigorously sought.61 Colorado's policy was to do all it could to bring about construc- tion of the federal reclamation projects which its citizens wanted built. While the federal government financed these projects, water rights for these projects were almost always obtained by the water conservancy district sponsoring the project" within the appropriation system established by the Colorado Constitution. 47. See Colorado River Storage Project Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 620-620(o) (1980 & Supp. 1983). 48. See,e.g.,cases cited supra note 21;Four Counties,Water Users Ass'n v.Colo.River Water Cons. Dist., 159 Colo. 499, 414 P.2d 469 (1966). 49. See, e.g., S. Doc. No. 80, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (1937),which is probably the most contested and controversial senate document in Colorado history.It is the document that con- trolled construction of the Colorado Big Thompson Project. See Pub. L. No. 75-249, Act of Aug. 9, 1937,ch 570,50 Stat. 592,595 (1937);Sax,Problems of Federalism in Reclamation Law, 37 U. COLD. L. REV. 49 (1964). 50. See I COLO. WATER CONS. BD., supra note 45. 51. All reclamation projects require extensive lobbying.None was probably more intense than the effort on behalf of the Frying Pan Arkansas Project. 52. Cf. Four Counties Water Users Ass'n v. Colorado River Dist.,161 Colo. 416, 425 P.2d 259 (1967);an exception was the Colorado Big Thompson project for which the United States, a trustee, obtained the right.