9351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r On May 1, 1979, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the minimum stream flow program in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 197 Colo. 469, 594 P.2d 570 (1979). Seven weeks later, on June 22, 1979, the Governor signed Senate Bill 481, which affirtaed legislative intent that only the Water Conservation Board could appropriate minimum stream flows. This Bill revised the definition of "appropriation" in C.R.S. ~ 37-92-103(3) to specify that, with respect to all appropriations other than the CWCB's, the water appropriated must have been "divert[ed], store(d), or otherwise capture[d], possess[ed], and control[led]." In addition, C.R.S. ~ 37-92-305(9)(a) and (b) were added to prohibit the water courts from issuing conditional or absolute decrees unless the water is to be, or has been, "diverted, stored, or otherwise captured, possessed, and controlled and [has] been applied to a beneficial use ." While the General Assembly has defined "beneficial use" as including "the impoundment of water for recreational purposes, including fishery or wildlife" (emphasis added), s~ Zigan Sand and Gravel. Inc.- v. Cache la Poudre Water Users Assn, 758 P.2d 175, 182 (Colo. 1988), the statute limits the definition of beneficial use for preservation of the environment to a reasonable degree, through minimum stream flows, to the Water Conservation Board. C.R.S. ~ 37-92-103(4). The most recent legislative statement regarding the exclusivity of the Board's authority is the following provisions adopted as part of S.B. 212 in 1987: In the adjudication of water rights pursuant to this article no other person or -8-