WSP07268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Oll1186 , . ]957] 249 THE PELTON DECISION city in the Rocky Mountain region could not grow, or perhaps even survive in an age when water is a limiting factor in the economy of all cities. Denver sought to establish its right to a priority in the waters of the Blue River, a stream west of the Continental Divide, such priority dating back some twenty years. Opposing Denver's claim was the South Platte Water Users Association, which also sought to establish apriority in the Blue River waters for use, via transmountain diversion, on the so-called eastern slope of the Divide. Denver was successful.92 The United States intervened in the case on behalf of the Colorado Big Thompson Project, a giant reclamation-and-power project commenced in 1935 by the Bureau of Reclamation, consisting of a series of reser- voirs on the west slope of the Divide, a tunnel through the mountains, and power plants, transmission lines, canals, and other appurtenances on the eastern slope. The government claimed that its priority for this project was not 1935, as established by the Colorado officials, but 1905, the date of the original power withdrawal. The government attorneys later agreed to a stipulation providing for the 1935 priority date. Both the stipulation and the decision preceded the Pelton decision. Had it been otherwise, would the government attorneys have been justified in entering into such a stipulation? If they had refused to do so and had insisted on the 1905 date, would the Supreme Court of Colorado have been at liberty to deny.the 1905 priority date?93 What any court may do is concededly speculative, but there can be little doubt that a decision for the earlier date would have been in general accord with the Pelton decision. Thus, the Big Thompson priority could have been fixed at a period antedating an of Denver's transmountain diversions, the cost of which ran in excess of $20 million.94 The matter may not he settled finally, despite the stipulation and decision; if not, one can con- fidently predict that the government will again raise the question of its purported early priority. CONCLUSION No attempt has been made to present a complete list of cases on the subject. Even many decisions of the highest court of the land have been omitted, decisions, such as Ickes v. FOX,95 containing explicit and un- 92 City and County of Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 276 P.2d 992 (1954). 93 "The title to the lands upon which the eastern terminus of the dam is to rest has been in the United States since the cession by Great Britain of the area now comprising the State of Oregon. Even if formerly they may have been open to private appropriation as 'public lands,' Ihey were mlhdra.wn fra", such availabitily before any vested inleresls conflicting with Ihe Pelton Praiat were acquired." Federal Power Comm'n v. Oregon (Pelton case), 349 U.S. 435, 444 (1955). (Emphasis added.) 94 Hearings, supra note 90, at 346-47. 95300 U.s. 82 (1937).