Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />r <br />People v. Emmert, <br />198 Colo. 137, 141-142, 597 P.2d 1025, 1027-1028 <br />(1979) <br />Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. <br />Colorado Water Conservation Bd., <br />197 Colo. 469, 476, 594 P.2d 570, 574-575 (1979) <br />4. Private Instream Flow Water Rights <br />Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Rocky <br />Mountain Power Co., <br />158 Colo. 331, 336-337, 406 P.2d 798, 800-801 <br />(1965) <br />III. REQUIREMENT OF CAPTURE, POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF WATER <br />FOR A VALID APPROPRIATION HAS ONE EXCEPTION - TAE <br />MINIMUM STREAM PROGRAM OF THE COLORADO WATER <br />CONSERVATION BOARD. <br />In examining the question of instream flows for <br />recreation or other instream uses, it is necessary to analyze how <br />the CWCB instream flow program came to be, how it was upheld by <br />the Colorado Supreme Court, and the statutory requirements <br />applicable to entry of a decree recognizing a valid appropriation <br />in Colorado. <br />The Colorado Constitutional provisions pertaining to <br />water rights are supplemented by provisions of statute. <br />Regulation of the water rights appropriative and administrative <br />system through statutory criteria adopted by the Colorado General <br />Assembly has been upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court on many <br />occasions throughout this century.}~ C.R.S. $ 37-92-102(1)(a) <br />1/ See, e•a., Danielson v. Jones, 698 P.2d <br />State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickrov, 627 P.2d <br />West End Irriaation Co. v. Garvey, 117 Colo. <br />(1947); German Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Plat <br />Co., 67 Colo. 390, 178 P. 896 (1919); n Re ~ <br />Reservoir Co., 56 Colo. 252, 139 P.2 (1913); <br />240 (Colo. 1985); <br />752 (Colo. 1981); <br />109, 184 P.2d 476 <br />~e Valley Irrigation <br />3erman Ditch & <br />New Cache la Poudre <br />(continued... <br />-4- <br />