Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />originating. <br />The waters here involved <br />property of the publ ic, not any <br />thereof, nor are they dedicated <br />geographical portion of the state. <br />The right to appropriate water and put <br />the same to beneficial use at any place in <br />the state is no longer to open to question.54 <br /> <br />are the <br />segment <br />to any <br /> <br />Thus the general rule in Colorado is that water may be diverted <br /> <br />without geographic restriction so long as it is applied to a <br /> <br />beneficial use. <br /> <br />B. The Conservancy District Exception <br /> <br />1. Historical Setting. The earliest transmountain diver- <br />sions in Colorado involved small projects built by private <br /> <br />groups. <br /> <br />In the 1920's the city of Denver began development of a <br /> <br />large transmountain diversion project involving construction of a <br /> <br />tunnel under the Continental Divide. <br /> <br />Agricultural interests in <br /> <br />the northern Fron.t Range became interested in pursuing federal <br /> <br />funding to help build a project to divert water from Grand <br /> <br />Lake at the head of the Colorado River to the eastern slope by <br /> <br />means of a tunnel. <br /> <br />These interests joined together as the <br /> <br />Northern Colorado Water Users Association in 1934. Concern about <br /> <br />the potential adverse impacts of this plan prompted the creation <br /> <br /> <br />of the Colorado River Protective Association in that same year. <br /> <br />A year earl ier, represen ta t i ves from across the s ta te had <br /> <br />met to discuss federal funding for Colorado water projects. The <br /> <br />54Metropolitan Suburban Water Users Association v. Colorado <br />River Water Conservation District, 148 Colo. 173, 202, 365 P.2d <br />273, 288-89 (1961). <br /> <br />22 <br />