The Elbert County tribune., 1911-03-17
COLORADO
LEGISLATIVE
o Q N G S
carpenter LITIGATION eilI.

! AT t1e eleFentu uOul tnt otAdlS
has awakened to the importance OF
bill No. 124, by Senator Carpenter
which will have the effect Of repeal
ing that clause in the irrigation act
OF 1901, which prohibits the impound-
ing OF water in reservoirs when it is
needed for irrigation 1t was not until
the bill had been debated by few
senators for three days that senator's
began to sit up and take notice.
This bill seeks to amend the one
passed by the Legislature in 1901
Under the provisions of that act, the
state engineer and his subordinates are
given police powers to compel the
owners of bitches, canals, fumes and
seservoirs, taking water from any
stream, to erect and maintain in good
repair, headgates and measuring
fumes or weirs at every point of in
take or diversion. ALL headgates and
measuring weirs, used in connection
with canals, fumes, bitches and res
ervoifs are placed under the super
vision and control of the state engin-
Ger and his subordinates-
Section 4 OF that act provides that
"the owners or possessors of reser-
voirs shall not have the right TO inn
pound any water whatever in Such
reservoir during the time that such
water is required in bitches for direct
irrigation or for reservoirs holding
senior rights" Then follows direc-
tion- to reservoir owners to maintain
gauge rods at the outlets of the res
ervoirs on the penalty of having the
water shut off at the intake. 1t was
under this section of the act of 1901
that State Engineer Comstoek kept
the water running in the natural
streams in northern Colorado all O.
last winter and which caused him 10
be hailed into the District Court OF
Boulder county in injunction proceed
ings brought by the Laramie G. Weld
Reservoir Company OF Fort Collins.
Senator Carpenters, bill seeks to,
amend this section of the act of 1901
by leaving out the first part of the Sec
ton which prohibits the storage OF
water in reservoirs duEing the time
that it is needed in bitches. What the
effect of this amendment would be
was explained in animated debate by
a number of senators. Senators Cross
and Stephen held that without this, po-
sitive prohibition against reservoir
ownes the agricultural interests
would be absolutely at the mercy of
the reservoir companies because wa
ter could be stored in an unreasonable
quantity during the irrigation season.
The claim was! made that under the
present law reservoirs are allowed, on
ly the water they can reasonably use.
but that without this safeguard any
reservoir, with senior right, could
take on supply of water not only Of
during any particular irrigation sea-
son. but that even in times of STRESS
under the protection of its prior ap-
preparation, it could store volume
for speculative purposes, selling the
water at some future time while sub
sequent ditch appropriations would get
absolutely no water at ALL
Both Cross and Stephen argued that
IL this bill were enacted the last ves-
tige of protection to the farmer
against the encroachments of the res
ervoir corporations would disappear
and that the storage companies would
become the water lords of the state
There would be no limit to the mum.
ber of times reservoirs could be filled
and eventually the public streams OF
Colorado would be utilized to keep res
ervoirs always at high water mark