09 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and application of the science to quantify the amount of water that is needed for reasonable preservation. Furthermore, Staff evaluates water availability as it exists on the stream at the time of the proposed recommendation for the increase. This is necessary in order to ensure that current hydrologic data is being utilized. Staff also analyzes injury from the standpoint of the existing portfolio of decreed water rights and other existing non-decreed uses and practices that would be recognized in accordance with C.R.S. 37-92-102 (3)(b). Executive summary reports that outline staff's analysis, as well as the recommending entities' scientific rationale, are presented to the Board to enable it to determine that 1) there is a natural environment that can be preserved to a reasonable degree with the Board's water right, if granted; 2) that the natural environment will be preserved to a reasonable degree by the water available for the appropriation to be made; and 3) that such environment can exist without material injury to water rights. 4) Res Judicator Board members at the January 2007 meeting also raised the question of whether a proposed ISF enlargement would be limited by the common law doctrine of res judicator, which bars the re- litigation of matters that have been previously decided in a prior court proceeding as well as issues which were not but could have been raised in a prior judicial action. The Board was concerned that a party opposing a proposed enlargement of an ISF appropriation might argue that the water court confirmed the amount of water that is necessary to preserve the environment to a reasonable degree in the original ISF decree, and the doctrine of res judicator closes the door to further appropriations for that purpose on that stream. Again, staff requested that the Attorney General's office provide an analysis of this issue in order to address the Board's concerns. The conclusions of that analysis are as follows: 1. Res judicator would not apply to limit the new appropriation to the original decreed amount because the General Assembly expressly authorized the Board to appropriate increases to existing instream flow appropriations. This statutory amendment occurred subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251, 1260 (Colo. 1995), 2. The General Assembly's express authorization of increases to existing instream flow appropriations implies that it envisioned changes to existing appropriations based on new stream flow data, updated biological evidence or science, and /or a more accurate scientific understanding of the amount and timing of water needed to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree . 5) Requirements for Recommending Entities Proposing an Increase In January 2007, the Board directed staff to bring back detailed reports for the proposed Badger Creek recommendation in Water Division 2, and the Pauline Creek recommendation in Water Division 4 prior to requesting final action on these recommendations. The Board wanted to review supporting data identifying the basis and need for the proposed increases for these recommendations. 4