WSP08323 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

such protection only to projects undertaken by conservancy districts. The same general issues are raised in any such diversion. It has been suggested that the constitutional provision stating that the "right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied"95 limits the legislature's ability to protect basins of origin.96 As discussed, the legality of transbasin diversions is well establ ished in Colorado.97 However, it is also well established that the legislature may impose reasonable conditions on the diversion of water. As the Colorado Supreme Court observed in 1885: "While the legislature cannot prohibit the appropriat ion or diversion or unappropriated water, for useful purposes, from natural streams upon the public domain, that body has the power to regulate the manner of effecting such appropriation or diversion."98 The challerige to the 1943 statute restricting transbasin 95Article XVI, Sec. 6, Constitution of Colorado. 96Carlson, "Report to Governor John A. Love on Certain Colorado Water Law problems," 50 Denver L. J. 293, 306 (1973). 97See text accompanying notes 53-55 supra. 98Larimer County Reservoir Co. v. People ex reI. Luthe, 8 Colo. 614, 9 P. 794, 797 (1885). Cases In which the Colorado Supreme Court has approved such legislative restrictions are cited in City and County of Denver v. Bergland, 517 F. Supp. 155 (D. Colo. 1981) at 207 and 208. Note that in Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882), the Court approved an out-of- watershed diversion "[i]n the absence of legislation to the contrary...." See also, Note, "Constitutionality of Colorado Statutes providing-for Transmountain Water Diversions," 25 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 363, esp. 366-67 (1953) 40