Laserfiche WebLink
Ir <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />state") (citing Alamosa-LaJara, 674 P.2d at 935). It is clear that the limits on the amount of water <br />an appropriator could properly claim even before SB 216 were based on "beneficial use" and <br />"maximuxn utilization," with an overall policy of "maximizing use" of Colorado's water resources. <br />To determine if SB 216 imposed any additional limits on the amount of water that a proper <br />local government entity may claim for recreational in-channel purposes, the Court must again tum <br />first to the plain language of the statute. Concerned Parents of Pueblo, Inc., 47 P.3d at 313. The <br />plain language of SB 216 explicitly integrated "recreational in-channel diversions" into the existing <br />definition of beneficial use. "Beneficial use" is now defined as "the use of that amount of water that <br />is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the <br />purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made and, without limiting the generality of the <br />foregoing, ... includes the diversion of water by a[specified local government] for recreational in- <br />channel diversionpurposes" (emphasis added). C.R.S. § 37-92-103(4). Thus the amount of water <br />for a recreational in-channel diversion is necessarily deteimined with respect to the appropriator's <br />intended purpose and reasonably efficient practices in the same manner as was done for pre-SB 216 <br />water rights. <br />This conclusion is confirmed - with one modification - by examination of other parts of SB <br />216 and by legislative history. <br />-12-