Laserfiche WebLink
<br />case were all cities. <br /> <br />A major challenge to the constitutionality of the Colorado <br /> <br />area of origin protection statute was raised in Central Colorado <br /> <br />Water Conservancy District v. Colorado River Water Conservation <br /> <br />Distr ict. 71 <br /> <br />There the conservancy district argued that the <br /> <br />Colorado constitutional provision guaranteeing that "[t]he right <br /> <br />to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to <br /> <br /> <br />beneficial uses shall never be denied"72 precluded the restric- <br /> <br />tions contained in the conservancy district statute. <br /> <br />The Cour t <br /> <br />avoided this constitutional issue by noting that such districts <br /> <br />are instrumentalities of the state and that their authority is <br /> <br />completely established by, and limited to, the statute that <br /> <br />creates them. <br /> <br />The Court stated: <br /> <br />"To say that the legislature <br /> <br />cannot impose conditions upon this creature of statute before it <br /> <br />could divert water from a natural basin to the district flies in <br /> <br />the face of well settled principles of constitutional law."73 <br /> <br />I n the ca se 0 f Colorado Ri ver Wa ter Conserva t i on Di str ict <br /> <br />v. Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District74 the Colorado Supreme Court addressed what a conser- <br /> <br />vancy district must do to comply with the planning requirements <br /> <br />of the protection provision. <br /> <br />At issue was the plan submitted by <br /> <br />71186 Colo. 193, 526 P.2d 302 (1974). <br /> <br />72Article XVI, Sec. 6, Constitution of Colorado. <br /> <br />73Central Colorado Water <br />River Water Conservation Board, <br />302, 304 (1974). <br /> <br />74198 Colo. 352, 610 P.2d 81 (1979). <br /> <br />Conservancy District v. Colorado <br />186 Colo. 193, 195-196, 526 P.2d <br /> <br />30 <br />