9351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

instream flow appropriations for recreational purposes can be integrated into Colorado's prior appropriation system. First and foremost this is a legislative task, as the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized: If the increasing demand for recreational space on the waters of this state is to be accommodated, the legislative process is the proper method to achieve this end. People v. E ert, 198 Colo. 137, 143, 59? P.2d 1025, 1029 (1979). The CWCB program has prepared the way for a Statewide recreational waters program. The Supreme Court was able to uphold the minimum stream flow law as constitutional, without a means of capture, possession and control, because the minimum stream flow program was implemented by a carefully drawn State statute and was not tantamount to institution of the doctrines of natural flow, riparian water law, and the public trust: We conclude that the General Assembly has established "what job must be done" with sufficient clarity. It also has answered "who must do it" since it is specifically the Colorado Water Board which is authorized to appropriate waters to accomplish the legislative purpose. It has sufficiently described the scope of the Colorado Water Board's authority. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 197 Colo..469, 479, 594 P.2d 570, 577 (1979). A responsible and adequately-funded program of recreational water use headed by the State Board of Parks, including a carefully defined program authorizing appropriation and administration of instream flows, is a logical extension of that kind of certainty, stability, and flexibility which has characterized the State's prior appropriation law. -25-