Laserfiche WebLink
<br />diversions by conservancy districts was decided on the grounds of <br /> <br /> <br />legislative control over entities created by statute.99 Thus the <br /> <br />question whether the Colorado Constitution prohibits such a <br /> <br />provision for nonstatutorily-created diverters was avoided. <br /> <br />Certainly the Constitution prohibits legislation taking away the <br /> <br />right to divert unappropriated water. <br /> <br />Moreover, case law <br /> <br />suggests that there can be no geographic preferences accorded to <br />would-be appropriators.lOO Beyond these limitations, however, it <br /> <br />is evident that the legislature may seek to promote legitimate <br /> <br />state interests by prescribing reasonable conditions on diver- <br /> <br />sions. <br /> <br />Any legislative scheme aimed at providing protection for <br /> <br />important area of origin interests must be able to meet this <br /> <br />standard. <br /> <br />There may also be some question regarding the status of home <br /> <br />rule cities within any such legislative scheme. <br /> <br />Home rule cities <br /> <br />such as Denver and Colorado Springs enjoy a special status under <br /> <br />the Colorado Constitution.101 <br /> <br />AS a matter of constitutional <br /> <br />authority they are given the powers "necessary, requisite or <br /> <br />proper for the government and administration of its local and <br /> <br />municipal matters, <br /> <br />.. .. <br /> <br />"102 <br /> <br />The authority of home rule cities <br /> <br />99Central Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Colorado <br />Water Conservation District, 186 Colo. 193, 526 P.2d 302 (1974). <br />See text accompanYIng notes 71-73 supra. <br /> <br />100Metropolitan Suburban Water Users Association v. Colorado <br />River Water Conservation District, 148 Colo. 173, 365 P.2d 273 <br />(1961) . <br /> <br />101Article XX, Constitution of Colorado. <br /> <br />102Id. Sec. 6. <br /> <br />41 <br />