Laserfiche WebLink
use or waste. The Court concludes that that is still the standard which this Court must <br />apply. Based on the discussion above, the Court is persuaded and finds that the <br />amount sought in this instance does not reach the level of speculation or waste. The <br />Court again notes that there is no finding by the CWCB that would suggest that there is. <br />Colorado has recognized RICD since Citv of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 <br />P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992), and legislatively has restricted this water right in Senate Bill 216. <br />4. The final area for legal conclusions are what were referred to as the <br />102(b) factors. The Court concludes that the CWCB has not found nor does the Court, <br />that at any of the levels requested by the Applicant this RICD will impair Colorado's <br />ability to fully develop and put to beneficial use its compact entitlements, injure any <br />CWCB instream flow right, is inconsistent with maximum utilization or will not divert, <br />capture or control the requested water. <br />In considering the 102(b) factors, the Court concludes, based on the evidence <br />presented, <br />(a) The amounts requested will not impair Colorado's ability to fully <br />develop and put to beneficial use its compact entitlements. The <br />legislative history expresses concern of such a right at or near the <br />state line precluding development up river. Here, the right sought is <br />on the Upper Gunnison, roughly 150 miles from the state line, 10 <br />miles downstream from the point where the East and Taylor Rivers <br />meet to form the Gunnison River. Further, portions of these upper <br />20