BOARD01026

• Board Meeting Date: 5/16/2006
• Description: History of Reservoirs in the San Luis Valley - Presentation by Melvin Getz
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

I

\ 0'.'\
a \...
ft. ~
\ ,
l,~ ' f
.. , .
~. t

,'i Y
'i'. ,.
. \

3

-34-.

"

.;; practically everything was .lost. The cost which was estimated at ! 9,000,
was &27,000, but enlargements had to be iDade in 1873, 7u, and 77, and the
final cost was $87,000. Altogethsr, the ditohes-that Were estimated to
cost ~20,OOO, required outlays of t4l2,OOO.

" "
('. The greater part of the unforeseen costs was for correcting structural
',1 deficienciss. The elimination of sharp bends in the ditches was. expansive,
as was the installation of ohecks where the slops was teo great. A
little experience'oould have saved thousands of dollars, but even by the
trial and error method the famers on Greeley Number Two got their water
cheaply. The co.st of the completed works was $350 per 80 acres.

The success of the Greeley colony gave Colorado tremendous publicity.
The whole world seemed to be watching the experiment. When the success
of irrigation farming 011 the uplands seemed assured,' there was a rush to
build big ditches throughout the state. A few attempts were mads to
imitate the colonization plan: The Chicago colony at Longmont, the
Fountain colony at Colorado Springs, .the Green City colcny in the South
Platte, and the Agricultural colony at Fort Collins. Most of the big
ditohes that followed the Greeley success, were not built by colonists,
but by corporations usi.ng Britis~ capital, however. Thsse ditches wsre
built with two purposes in mind. First a profit oould be mads from ths
sale of land. An option would be. taken on railroad .lands. Without water
these lands would bring from 62.50 to t4.00 per acre. With water avail-
able, the value would skyrocket to ~.loo or more. Second, after the land
was sold it 'was confidently expected thet the sale of water would flive
very liberal rsturns as a permanent investment. Several of the Greeley
men became the promoters of new ditohes, 'and the mistakes made on Greelsy
Number Two were.never repeated.

.

A second contribution of oreeley to ColOrado irrigation was in the
formulation and promotion of a system of public administration of
streams. When Greeley Number Three and Greeley Number Two w13re construct-
ed there was little water being used above their head gates. However,
in 1672 the United states' government closed Camp CoUins and offered the
3,000 aore military reservation for sale. The Agricultural colony.of
Fort Collins was formed to buy the reservation and to build ditcheS with
whioh to supply the surrounding land with water and to develop the town
of Fort Collins.. '.R. A. Cemsron of the Greeley and Fountain oolonies
became president of the new enterprise. On the surfaoe it appsared .to
be just such a oolonial effort as Greeley, but in reality it was a mers
speoulative soheme. It failed to establish a aolvent enterprise, but
they did buiJ.d two ditohes - Larimer County Canal Number Two in 187Z and.
Lake Canal in 1873. The early summer of 187u was vary dry. According
to the Fort Collins Standard the rivet' was lower than it had been since.
1863. Thera was not enough water in the Poudre to supply both the ditches
at Gresley so Number TWo was ordered olosed 2 days a week to permit water
to reaoh Number'Three ditoh. The irrigators at Greeley became e.larmed
beoause they knew that two large ditches had just baen con~tructad 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 ,soaroe? The right to appropriats wat.er had bean recognized
by law but the idea of prior appropriation had not yst been speoifically .

r