Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B

Home Browse Search

21. In relevant part the legisiative history reflects the fioliowing: a. In the "Legislative Statement" it provides as follows: SB 216 is designed to insure that decrees for recreational in-channel diversions, as recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court in the Ci of Thornton v. Citv of Fort Collins, supra, are integrated into the state prior appropriation system in a manner which appropriately balances the need for water based recreational opportunities with the ability of Colorado citizens to divert and store water under our compact entitlements for more traditional consumptive use purposes, such as municipal, industrial and agricultural uses... It defines in-channel diversions such that only the "minimum" flow necessary to support the recreational activity can be sought... b. Senator Entz, the state senator for the area in which this RICD is proposed, in testifying before the Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning on April 12, 2001 made the following statements: Entities could use the current law to claim very high flows at the state borders to essentially export water to Cafifornia, Kansas and other states for use outside the state of Colorado. Senator Entz in describing a revised draft of the legislation on May 3, 2001 states as follows: The Bill now takes the Water Conservation Board, makes the Colorado Water Conservation Board responsible for making recommendations to the Water Court that are presumed to be accurate with respect to the control of water they must be shown to get a water right and ensuring that the amount of water being requested is reasonable and appropriate and any party can offer to rebut the CWCB's recommendations. He goes on to state in response to a question as to "how much leeway does the Water Court have?" as follows: Well, the Judge has the final say, iYs just a fact that the CWCB has the opportunity to address difEerent issues that they think would address that instream flow for kayaking." 11