Applicant's Closing Reply Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Upper Gunni:;on River Water Conse?^vancy District 02CW038 need, absent a showing that the claimed amount would cause injury to a vested senior water right. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d l, 46-48 (Colo. 1996). 3. The leQislative scheme does not contemplate or autho.rize the role the CWCB seeks for itself. The C'JVCB's single-minded focus on the phrase "minimum stream flow ... for a reasonable recreation experience" - without reference to the appropriator's intended purpose and the traditional notions of rea:;onable and efficient use - attempts to impose an objective standard which goes against the legislative scheme embodied in the 1969 Act. The CWCB now seeks to do exactly wha.t the General Asseinbly determined it could not do: exercise adjudicatory authority over recreational in- channel watei rights by determining the amount that should be appropriated. Even (:W CB Director Kuharich himself did not believe a recreational in-channe:l diversion was to be so constrained. He explained at the 5/7/2001 SB 2161egislative hearing: . .. I think if you look at the defuution, it's an attempt to fit this water right into the ? process we have now. It talks about minimum amount of water necessary to acconiplish a reasonable recreational experience. I think [unintelligible] . Reasonable and recreational and are two wards that are used in there. And I do thisilc that it's consistent with the test that other water users have to r,omply with because any water user, be it agricultural, municipal or industrial, is govelned by the test of efficiency where it's not all the water they can physically get a hold of, but it's a.!l the water that they can reasonably and efficiently use. And thar, really becor.ies the test of what those water rights can appropriate. And I think by this defini tion, we have placed this water right in the same light that the other water right classi f cations are. [Emphasis added]. -12-