The Glenwood post., 1911-08-12
bill can have any effect.
Opinion Is Sustained

Opinion Is Sustained
In this general view l am sustained
on the point of law by one of the
strongest opponents of the bill, the
Hon. l.. R. Rhodes of Fort Collins, who
in lengthy article in the Fort Collins
Courier of the Path and 25th inst. op.
poses it as being an attack on the res
ervoirs; but denies fatty that "the
legislature can by any act disturb
property rights acquired under pre-
vious law Mr.. Rhodes opinion,
however, Of the present status of water
rights appears to radically differ from
mine
1t is instructive to compare Mr.
Rhodes views with those enunciated
in sheet issued by the Direct Legs
lation league. The former says that
'the bill was passed to overturn the
entire system of irrigation law upon
which the rights of the reservoirs and
bitches in northern Colorado have been
founded; to ignore the natural distinc-
tion that exists between what has al
ways been considered the irrigation and
nonirrigation period, and to do away
with the whole system of facts upon
which reservoir DEGREES were founded
in every district in northern Colora.
do" (This would have been strong.
er indictment if the word natural"
ba b.,
"legal,' - and if the word considered"
could have been omitted.) On the 9th
er hand the Direct Legislation league
states that the bill will "take away
priority rights of ditch owners in the
interest or reservoir filings" and fur
ther that it is particularly" danger
ons to the original ditch owner in the
interests of the later reservoirs The
two views are obviously contradictory.
Both opponents see a trust ready an
parently to swallow reservoirs, bitches,
water rights and water.
Little Grouna for Attack
The facts probably are that the res
ervoir owners want bill that will es-
tabl!sh an irrigation season. and make
it legal, rather than natural. This the
Carpenter bill does not attempt to ere
ate, and as no legislature has ever
created one, and all reservoirs have
been subject to the direct use by
bitches, the position Of the old reser-
voirs is not improved. The fact that
the Carpenter bill by amendment rec
ognizes the law of 1901 to some eA-
tent makes their position worse by Its
recognition, and, in default of the kind
of law that would have helped them IN
the past, they are going into the courts
with some present success to restrain
the state officers from carrying out the
provisions of the old law. At the same
time, realizing that their rights cannot
be altered by any statute, there does
not seem to be much ground for their
attack on the bill.
Will Not Affect Present Status
The Direct Legislation league evi.
IDENTIFY thinks that the present status
of existing reservoir and ditch rights
will be disturbed to the injury of the
ditch owners, but this view, as Mr..
Rhodes points out, is erroneous. At
the same time it is the vital point.
By others speaking for direct ditch
es, the fear is expressed that certain
methods of late fall, winter and early
spring irrigation are threatened by the
BILL The expression in the bill "for
immediate use for direct irrigation" is
not new. The first part occurs in the
original act (G. 9. 1924 and the last
in the act of 1901 "Irrigation, as
used by the legislature is defined in
12 Colo. 525 as the "applcation of
water to lands for "the raising of ag-
ricultural crops and other products of
the soil. I" Nothing in the bill can
be interpreted to amend the law as to
the use of water, and any use that was
beneficial in the past will remain 80 in
the future. The state ofacers will still