PUB00068

• Year: 1952
• Title: A Hundred Years of Irrigatioin in Colorado, 100 Years of Organized and Continuous Irrigation
• Author: CWCB
• Description: Irrigation history of Colorado
• Publications - Doc Type: Historical

-34"

\ \.
\ C-. \. I,

practically everything was lost. The cost which was estimated at 19,000,
I was ~)27 ,000, but enlargements had to be made in 1873, 74, and 77, and the
final cost was $87,000. Altogether, the ditches ,that Were estimated to
cost $20,000, required outlays of *,412,000.

.

~ ,
t 7 "
'.~\ ,\ ,. \"'j The greater part of the unforeseen
n" , ;\ deficiencies. The elimination of sharp
\ ' ,
, as was the installation of checks where the slope was too great. A
'~'1 little experience' could have saved thousands of dcllars, but even by the
'(. ~. 1
trial and error method the farmers on Greeley Number Two got their water
cheaply. The cost of the completed works was $350 per 80 acres.

costs was for correcting structural
bends in the ditches was expensive,

The success of the Greeley colony gave Colorado tremendcus publicity.
The whole world seemed to be watching the experiment. When the success
of irrigation farming on the uplands seemed assured, there was a rush to
build big ditches throughout the state. A few attempts were made to
imitate the colonization plan: The Chicago colony at Longmont, the
Fountain colony at Colorado Springs, the Green City colony in the South
Platte, and the Agricultural colony at Fort Collins. Most of the big
ditches that followed the Greeley success, were not built by colonists,
but by corporations using Britisq capital, however. These ditches were
built with two purposes in mind. First a profit could be made from the
sale of land. An option would be taken on railroad lands. Without water
these lands would bring from $2.50 to t4.00 per acre. With water avail-
able, the value would skyrocket to $100 or more. Second, after the land
was sold it 'was confidently expected that the sale of water would give
very liberal returns as a permanent investment. Several of the Greeley
men became the promoters of new ditches, and the mistakes made on Greeley
Number Twc were never repeated.

A second contribution of Greeley to Colorado irrigation was in the
fcrmulation and promotion of a system of public administration of
streams. When Greeley Number Three and Greeley Number Two were construct-
ed there was little water being used above their head gates. However,
in 1872 the United States' government closed Camp Collins and offered the
3,000 acre military reservation for sale. The Agricultural colony of
Fort Collins was formed to buy the reservation and to build ditches with
which to supply the surrounding land with water and to develop the town
of Fort Collins.R. A. Cameron of the Greeley and Fountain colonies
became president of the new enterprise. On the surface it appeared to
be just such a colonial effort as Greeley, but in reality it was a mere
speculative scheme. It failed to establish a solvent enterprise, but
they did build two ditches - Larimer County Canal Number Two in 1872 and
Lake Canal in 1873. The early summer of 1874 was very dry. According
to the Fort Collins Standard the river was lower than it had been since
1863. There was not enough water in the Poudre to supply both the ditches
at Greeley so Number Two was ordered closed 2 days a week to permit water
to reach Number Three ditch. The irrigators at Greeley became alarmed
because they knew that two large ditches had just been constructed by
the Agricultural colony at Fort Collins. These ditches would begin to
draw water in the summer of 1874. Who was to have the right to the water
when it became ~carce? The right to appropriate water had been recognized
by law but the idea of prior appropriation had not yet been specifically