Laserfiche WebLink
As administration of water approaches its second century the curtain is <br />opening upon the new drama of maximum utilization and how <br />constitutionally that doctrine can be integrated into the law of vested <br />rights." (emphasis in original). The 1969 Water Right Determination and <br />Administration Act (1969 Act) contains the General Assembly's response. <br />See Act of June 7, 1969, ch. 373 at 1200-1224. Both responses centered <br />on: (1) reinforcing the adjudication and administration of decreed water <br />rights in order of their priority; and (2) maximizing the use of Colorado's <br />limited water supply for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with <br />meeting fhe state's interstate delivery obligations under United States <br />Supreme Court equitable apportionment decrees and congressionally <br />approved interstate compacts. People ex rel. Simpson v. Hiqhland <br />Irriqation Co., 917 P.2d 1242, 1248, 1252-53 (Colo. 1996). <br />This analysis here must evaluate what impact this non-consumptive use will <br />have. As to any downstream rights, the answer is none. As to any future upstrearn <br />rights, the amount reqiaested is estimated to be 41 % of the available supply. This <br />ciearly will reduce junior upstream development, exchanges and trans-mountain <br />diversion (of which nonz are presently identified). This Court is reluctant to intervene to <br />usurp the Applicant's determination of the size and scope of a RIrD, subject to the <br />traditional criteria of speculation and waste. Accordingly, the Court will not second <br />guess the Applicant an its requested amount. <br />The question really turns on what weight or emphasis to give to language in the <br />definitional provision (C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3)) of "minimum stream flow"..."for a <br />reasonable recreation experience in and on the water." The Court concludes that this <br />language must be read in context with all of the other provisions. To preclude an <br />Applicant from determining precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel <br />diversion would appear to infringe on the Constitutional right to appropriate. The <br />counterbalance under traditional water law would be that there can be no speculative <br />19