Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />properly desib ed and constructed, are structures which concentrate the flow ofwater to serve their <br />intended purposes". See Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 932. <br />The legislature, however, went beyond Fort Collins in deciding that only specified local <br />government entities (including water conservancy districts) may seek water rights based on control <br />ofwaterinitsnaturalcourseorlocationforrecreationalin-channeluses. SeeC.R.S. § 37-92-103(7). <br />This was apparently the legislature's way of addressing the concerns over "mischievous" applicants <br />who might oppose "an attempt to develop a water right ... with an instr.eam flow filing for <br />recreational purposes". See footnote 5 supYa, citing April 12, 2001 Hearing at 9. As stated by the <br />CWCB Director Rod Kuharich, "There are local boat chutes that should have a measure of local <br />control rather than national special interest b oups or quite possibly the agencies of the federal <br />government." See footnote 5 supra citing May 7, 2001 Hearing at 4. Limiting the type of entity who <br />can apply for a particular type ofwater right was somewhat unprecedented. Other than instream flow <br />water rights, which may be appropriated only by the CWCB, there has never been a limit on the class <br />of persons or entities who can claim a particular water right. <br />Although limiting the type of entity who could be an applicant, the legislature did not go so <br />far as to limit in any significantly new way the amount of water that could be appropriated for <br />recreational in-channel purposes by the designated local goverrunents. Even before SB 216, the <br />amount ofwater that could be claimed had always been detennined in a very general way by reference <br />-9-