Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> <br />- Upper^ Gunnison River Water Conservancy Distr-ict <br />02CW038 <br />carefully crafted to avoid the very concerns SB 216 was intended to adciress, and that the District has <br />met all of the requirements for appropriation of a conditional water right for recreational in-channel <br />uses. The District's application should therefore be granted.' <br />II. Senate Bi11216. <br />A. Concerns That Led to SB 216. <br />SB 216, enacted by the Colorado legislature and signed by the governor on June 5, 2001, put <br />to rest the questions whether and to what extent Colorado law recognized so-called in-channel water <br />rights. In City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915, 930 (Colo. 1992), the Supreme <br />Court had held that: <br />[c]ontrolling water within its natural course or location by some <br />structure or device for a beneficial use ... may result in a valid <br />appropriation. <br />In considering the in-channel structures at issue in that case, the Supreme Court stated: <br />In general, boat chutes and fish ladders, when properly designed and <br />constructed, are structures which concentrate the flow of water to <br />serve their intended purposes. A chute or ladder therefore may qualify <br />as a`structure or device' which controls water in its natural course or <br />' The District has been able to obtain portions of the trial transcript, including the <br />testimony of Ms. Curry, and Messrs. DeVore, Peterson, Lacy, Schumacher and McLaughlin. <br />Portions of the trial transcript cited herein are attached. The remaining transcript has not yet been <br />completed. Also, Reporter Diane Murphy's certificate has not been received, but will be provided <br />as soon as possible. <br />-2-