Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />diversion of any portion of .the water <br />"appropriated" from the natural course of the <br />stream. By the enactment of [C.R.S. <br />§ 37-46-107(1)(j)] the legislature did not <br />intend to bring about such an extreme <br />departure from well established <br />doctrine . <br />406 P.2d at 800. <br />The legislative history of the relevant statutes in <br />connection with the CWCB program confirms the exclusive nature of <br />the Board's instream flow authority. For many years in Colorado <br />it was held that a "diversion" was fundamental to the doctrine of <br />prior appropriation in Colorado. See e. ., Colorado River Water <br />Conservation Dist. v. Rocky Mountain Power Co., 158 Colo. 331, <br />406 P.2d 798 (1965); City and County of Denver v. Northern <br />Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 276 P.2d 992 <br />(1954). In 1973, by Senate Bill 97, the definitions of <br />"appropriation," "beneficial use" and "priority" contained in the <br />1969 Water Right Determination and Administration Act, C.R.S. <br />~ 37-92-101 et. sea., were amended by deleting explicit <br />references to the "diversion" requirement in the process of <br />authorizing non-diversionary minimum stream flow appropriations <br />by the CWCB as a recognized beneficial use. The purpose of these <br />changes, according to the legislative declaration of policy in <br />S.B. 97, was to "correlate the activities of mankind with some <br />reasonable preservation of the natural environment." In <br />authorizing the CWCB to make non-diversionary appropriations, the <br />General Assembly altered the diversion language so as to avoid a <br />conflict with prior court decisions holding that a diversion must <br />be made before an appropriation can be decreed. <br />-7- <br />