My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:38 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 12:46:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B6
Description
Exhibits
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
12/26/2003
Author
J. Steven Patrick, Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
As administration of water approaches its second century the curtain is <br />opening upon the new drama of maximum utilization and how <br />constitutionally that doctrine can be integrated into the law of vested <br />rights." (emphasis in original). The 1969 Water Right Determination and <br />Administration Act (1969 Act) contains the General Assembly's response. <br />See Act of June 7, 1969, ch. 373 at 1200-1224. Both responses centered <br />on: (1) reinforcing the adjudication and administration of decreed water <br />rights in order of their priority; and (2) maximizing the use of Colorado's <br />limited water supply for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with <br />meeting the state's interstate delivery obligations under United States <br />Supreme Court equitable apportionment decrees and congressionally <br />approved interstate compacts. People ex re1. Simpson v. Hiqhland <br />Irriaation Co.. 917 P.2d 1242, 1248, 1252-53 (Colo. 1996). <br />This analysis here must evaluate what impact this non-consumptive use will <br />have. As to any downstream rights, the answer is none. As to any future upstream <br />rights, the amount requested is estimated to be 41 % of the available supply. This <br />clearly will reduce junior upstream development, exchanges and trans-mountain <br />diversion (of which none are presently identified). This Court is reluctant to intervene to <br />usurp the Applicant's determination of the size and scope of a RICD, subject to the <br />traditional criteria of speculation and waste. Accordingly, the Court will not second <br />guess the Appficant in its requested amount. <br />The question really turns on what weight or emphasis to give to language in the <br />definitional provision (C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3)) of "minimum stream flow"..."for a <br />reasonable recreation experience in and on the water." The Court concludes that this <br />language must be read in context with all of the other provisions. To preclude an <br />Applicant from determining precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel <br />diversion would appear to infringe on the Constitutional right to appropriate. The <br />counterbalance under traditional water law would be that there can be no speculative <br />19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.