7921 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The legislature's intent is quite clear that these appropriations are to protect and preserve the natural habitat and that the decrees confirming them award priorities which are superior to the rights of those who may 1 ater appropri ate. Otherwi Se upstream appropri at ions could later be made, the stream dried up, and the whole purpose of the legislation destroyed. In confirmation of this point, the court adopted the language of the water court: There was no evidence that these. appropriations resulted in any people of the State of Colorado being deprived of the beneficial use of water. Until such time as a person is in fact deprived of the beneficial use of available water because of these appropriations the alleged harm is purely speculative and must be rejected [supra, at 575J. Thus, this question has been reserved for future consideration. The third issue, whether "S.B.97 is unconstitutionally vague and makes an impermissible delegation of legislative authority to the Water Board," was easily dismissed. Over objections by the Districts, the Court determined that the General ~ssembly has established "what job must be done" with sufficient clarity. It has also answered "who must do it," since it is specifically the Colorado Water Board that is authorized to appropriate water to accomplish the legislature1s purpose. It has sufficiently described the scope of the Colorado Water Board's authority [supra, at 577J. The Court further determined that it was sufficient that the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR) could base its conclusion and recommendations for parks and recreation purposes on the basis of extensive reports done by the Division of Wildlife (DOW). The fourth issue, that "the Water Conservation Board failed to establish the quantity of water necessary to .preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree' ," was also dismissed. The Court determined that the appro- priation of the minimum flows necessary to preserve certain fish species also woul d suffi ce to ma i nta in the rest of the natural envi ronment. Thi s deter- mination was based on the Colorado Water Board's considerations including review of DOWs reports and DPORls comments. The Districts were unable to show that the Colorado Water Board's conclusion was unfounded or arbitrary [supra, at 578J. As previously mentioned in the discussion under issue two, above, at least one concern was not resolved in the case, that being whether the State may, by virtue of the minimum streamflow, deprive holders of consumptive use decrees of the actual beneficial consumptive use of water (S. Balcomb, Water Attorney, Delaney and Balcomb, Glenwood Springs, CO; letter dated 31 January 1986). Several water interests believe that the statute can be construed such that an instream flow appropriation may not defeat a beneficial consumptive use, even 17 ~