Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r ? <br />87CW040 3 <br />The applicant argues that such a restriction is special <br />legislation. Colorado Constitution Article Y Section 25. A <br />classification is permissible if it is based on substantial <br />differences having a reasonable relation to the objects or <br />purposes dealt with and to the public purpose sought to be <br />achieved by the legislation. McCarty v. Goldstein, 151 Colo. 154, <br />376 P2d 691 (1962); McClanahan v. American ilsonite Coe., 494 F. <br />Supp. 1334 (D. Colo. a purpose or authorizing-in s tream <br />flow appropriations is to protect the natural environment for the <br />benefit of the people of the state of Colorado. <br />Focusing on the purpose of this attempted appropriation, <br />preservation of the fisheries in the Colorado and Blue Rivers, <br />such fish are the property of the state of Colorado. C.R.S. <br />33-1-101(2). Therefore, the state of Colorado has an interest <br />in the protection of fisheries not shared by private individuals. <br />Therefore, the limitation to the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />of the right to make instream flow appropriations for the purpose <br />of protecting fisheries does not constitute unconstitutional <br />special legislation. <br />IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that said Motions are granted and <br />that summary judgment be entered against the applicant denying <br />the application here>i . <br />Dated / <br />this <br />_?day of February, 1988. <br />BY THE COURT: <br />Cr'91 O• •P I'•-/ "'9 Irs"Od to all <br />CIOU-1awl -• , . tlat?te <br />?77 "" <br />Salcomb <br />Porzak <br />Fischer <br />Fvnk <br />}{ "11 T,mlee <br />Raley <br />Johnson <br />Dingess <br />Montgomery <br />-.1.1 <br />GAVIN D. LITWILL <br />-•Wate-Jud9e