The Arvada enterprise., 1911-03-16
COLORAD DO
LEGISLATIVE
DOIN G s
Carpenter Irrigation Bill.
o O ! N G S


has awakened to the Importance OF
bill No. 1874, 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 senators
began to sit up and take notice.
This bill seeks to amend the ono
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
reservoirs, 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
ervoirs are placed under the super
vision and control of the state engin-
eeT ana MS SuDOTulnateS.
Section of that ait provides that
the owners or possessors of reser-
voirs shall not have the right to i'm
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 tie act or 1911
that State Engineer Comstock kept
the water running in the natural
streams in northern Colorado all O:
last winter and which caused him to
be hailed into the District Court OF
Boulder county in injunction proceed
ings brought by the Laramie & 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
| tion which prohibits the storage OF
water in reservoirs during 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
greater volume than 1t could use
during any particular irrigation sea,
son. but that even in times of stress.
under the protection of it's prior ap.
preparation, it could store a 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
If this bill were enacted the last YES
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 nun
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.