9355

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9355
• Author: Merriman, D.
• Title: The Colorado Water Conservation Board Program.
• USFW Year: 1990.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

r
4. The CWCB did not use the proper procedures in
requesting recommendations from the DOW and DPOR,
and acted to preserve only fish, rather than the
entire environment.
B. The court rules in favor of the Board on all counts
1. ISF appropriations do not require a physical
diversion
2. If ISF filings were limited to the amount of
downstream appropriations, the ISF program would
be useless; this could not have been the intent
of the Senate.
3. It is sufficient that DPOR concurs with the DOW
recommendations. The maintenance of a fishery
is a justifiable criteria for
quantifying instream flows, though it is not
necessarily the only one.
4. The Senate correctly left the criteria for
preserving the natural environment to the
technical expertise of the CWCB staff.
III.Senate Bill 453 - An attempt to limit and weaken the
program
A. Would severely limit the Board's ability to protect
its water rights from injury as against changes of
senior water rights
B. Passed both Senate and House on June 4, 1977
C. Vetoed by Governor Lamm - June 19, 1977
D. Reason for veto - "The effect of the bill would be
to gut the minimum stream flow program and render
it useless."
IV. Senate Bill 414 - Established principles and limitations
A. Passed into law in 1981
B. Limits claims to water imported from one water
diversion to another as against the original
appropriator or his successor
-2-