WSP04958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I, I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I 3 interstate streams.,,5 Colorado had become acutely concerned about the future of its interstate water rights following the Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. C:oloradQ (206 U.S. 46 [1907]). After a year's work in the field, Carpenter prepared a report which he delivered to the 18th Colorado State Assembly on December 3 I, 1911. It emphasized the need to preserve the prior appropriation doctrine and to reject any legislation attempting to place Colorado's waters under state control. It argued that a state water plan would "increase litigation and. . . impair the stability of vested rights." It urged the State Assembly to provide a "liberal appropriation of public funds" to resist attacks by the federal government and to create a defense fund sufficient to thwart the Reclamation Service's attempts to acquire control over the state's water. In conclusion Carpenter noted: Too serious consideration cannot be given this most important topic. Too positive a position can hardly be taken. The motto 'millions for defense and not one cent for tribute' may well be borne constantly in mind. Our position on the crest of the continent not only invites attack but compels constant vigilance coupled with readiness to respond to any and all attacks. Every facility should be provided for constant preparation and immediate action upon our part. 6 Although Carpenter seemed to have on occasion a siege mentality exacerbated by occasional paranoia regarding the federal government, his goal was to preserve Colorado's sovereign right to its water. Simultaneously, he worked with the state's neighbors to negotiate acceptable agreements out of court. In the years following his appointment as interstate streams commissioner, Carpenter worked on the Wyoming litigation, writing the major portion of the 1916 brief and vol. I of the 19 I 7 brief. He presented these