Laserfiche WebLink
If you Iook at the defmffiQn of a recrea.tional in-channel diversion in <br />the statute, it's the mkimum stream flow as it is captured, controlled <br />and placed to, beneficial use beiween specific points defined by <br />phy,sical cantrol stractures pu=suau-L to an application filed by one of <br />the enum?erated applications. Tbis reference to an application filed <br />by the appiican.t, by the District in this case; indicates-to us that the <br />applicatiori, itselt is the. tauchstone by wbich we should be <br />detenmining what is the minimum s#eam flow through the contcol .. <br />structiaes that wffi create a reasonable reereational experience. This <br />is consistent with the general concept of Coloratio water Iaw that in <br />obtauning conditional water rights, the in#eirt of th& appropriator is a <br />matdrial aspeet of the application. In arder to obtam $ conditional water right, the applicant has to show <br />that there's a subaantial probability that the origmally urtended <br />appropriation can and w11 be cample#ed vvithiq a r-easonable time. <br />So again, the concept of the intended appropria?on refers to the <br />intent of the appropriatar. So we believe that both the definition of a <br />recreatianarin»oham-etziiversion and traditioijal Cbloiado water law <br />support an intetpretation of Senate $ill 216 that looks to the <br />appzopriator's mtent in determining whether the flows claimsd are <br />reasonable and eonsistent withthe reereational purposes sought bY <br />the. appropriator. ? <br />So we'll ask you to Iisten pretty carefully to our witnesse$ who w'ill <br />be talkng about that, particularly Mr. Peterson and Mr. DeVore. <br />And we &lsa ask you to look very carefvlly at t3ie evidence that will <br />. be presentea to you abaut the impacts-on Compact enfidemem.ts and <br />development, -- full developmentfor beneficial use: We don't tbink <br />that a conditional water right for which an actuat intent and actions <br />taken towards f}ie implementation of the water right can be . <br />. demonstrated. Tn other words, a conditional water right hke this - <br />appxopriafion can be denied based on a speculative possble firture <br />pzoject where there's iio end-nser, there's no firm commrtment and <br />there's no ftnai project m the works. That's e;!ractly the sort of tlsing <br />that you can't use. #o get a water right. You ca».'t get a water right in <br />the &st place by saying, "Wejl, yeah maybe I might wazrt ta do <br />something some da.y so I'm going to go appropriate some water." <br />It seems to us that Colorado does not "sanction the debial qf a <br />. conditional water rights applicatioa based on some kind of <br />' specuta#ve impact Yo a speculative project. So we're asking ydu to <br />. listen carefolly #o wbat the actual Compact impaets aze expected to <br />. be. And we think the evidemce is going to show that theFe just isn't <br />? . going to be a factpal basis for this staTs recommended limits on the <br />r <br />Calozado Water Conservation Board <br />5eptember 10. 2002 Hearing Transcript <br />. Page 10