9351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

downstream point is an important use which has been approved by at least one judicial ruling, that of Judge Brown, Water Division 4, in Cases No. 86-CW-37, 202, 203 and 226 (May 5, 1988). Judge Brown's rationale is enlightening: In cases 86-CW-202 and 203, the Upper_ Gunnison River Water Conservancy District has made application for the right to store water for piscatorial and recreational purposes, both within the reservoir and for said purposes in-stream upon the release of said water from the reservoir. The Colorado Water Conservation Board and other parties to this litigation contend that the District's application in this regard is in essence a request for in-stream flows and that said request is unlawful because the Colorado General Assembly has determined that only the Colorado Water Conservation Board has authority to seek adjudication of minimum flow water rights. [See: C.R.S. 37-92-102(3).] The District contends that it is not in violation of said statute because the statute is limited to situations where water is naturally occurring within the stream and is neither diverted nor captured, but rather s~ permitted to flow 'between two designated points without being subject to appropriation by another water user. The District points out that in fact it is diverting or capturing water from the stream and impounding the same for recognized beneficial uses (including fishery and recreational) and that it then releases said waters into the stream to promote and achieve the purposes for which the water was originally stored. In resolving this issue, the Court concludes that the District's Constitutional right to appropriate (which, according to Section 6 of Article 16 shall "never be denied") is paramount to and in fact falls outside the provisions of the "in-stream flow" statute which authorizes the Colorado Water Conservancy Board to obtain minimum flow decrees in the limited situations where water naturally occurs within the stream and is neither diverted nor captured. In other words, this Court concludes that by capturing or diverting water the District has removed -18-