Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />sions--this time concerning a proposed project that would .take <br /> <br />water from the Colorado River basin across the mountains to <br /> <br />Colorado Springs and Aurora. <br /> <br />In an unequivocal statement the <br /> <br />Court noted: <br /> <br />We find nothing in the Constitution <br />which even intimates that waters should be <br />retained for use in the watershed where <br />originating. <br />The waters here involved <br />property of the publ ie, 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.55 <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. <br /> <br />The earliest transmountain diver- <br /> <br />Hi storical Setting. <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 Front 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 />55Metropolitan Suburban Water <br />River Water Conservation Dlstrict, <br />273, 288-89 (1961). <br /> <br />Users Association v. Colorado <br />148 Colo. 173, 202, 365 P,2d <br /> <br />22 <br />