Laserfiche WebLink
P <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />In determining how SB 216 addressed the concerns voiced to the legislature, the first - and <br />really only - place to turn is the plain language of the statute, which is unambiguous. Concerned <br />Parents ofPueblo, Inc. v. Gilmore, 47 P.3d 311, 313 (Colo. 2002) ("Our task in interpreting a statute <br />is to give effect to the intent of General Assembly.... To discem this intent, we first turn to the <br />language ofthe statute."); City ofAspen v. Meserole, 803 P.2d 950, 952 (Colo. 1990) ("To ascertain <br />[legislative] intent, words and phrases should be given effect according to their plain meaning.") <br />According to its plain language, SB 216: <br />• integrated the diversion of water for recreational in-channel diversion purposes into <br />the defuution of "beneficial use" (see C.R.S. § 37-92-103(4)); <br />• allowed only certain designated local government entities to divert water for <br />recreational in-channel diversion purposes (see C.R.S. § 37-92-103(7)); <br />• defined "recreational in-channel diversion" (see C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3)); <br />• delegated to the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") the duty of <br />reviewing applications for water rights for recreational in-channel diversions and <br />making "findings of fact and a final recommendation as to whether the application <br />should be granted, granted with.conditions, or denied" (see C.R.S. § 37-92-102(5) <br />and (6) and 37-92-305(16)); <br />• required both the CWCB in the performance of its delegated duties and the water <br />court in the exercise of its judicial fiznction to consider or apply five specific factors <br />in evaluating the application, along with "[s]uch other factors as may be determined <br />appropriate for evaluation of recreational in-channel diversions and set forth in rules <br />adopted by the [CWCB]" (see C.R.S. § 37-92-305(13) and 37-92-102(6)(b)); and <br />-7-