Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunni,son River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />As dis :ussed, in Applicant's Closing Brief, the concept of "maximum utilizatiorx" includes the <br />concept of "Yieneficial use" and its attendant notions of "appropriative intent" an(i "reasonably <br />efficient divexsion practices,"and the more expansive concept of "maximizing benefic,ial use." The <br />State seems ti) agree with some of these concepts in principle. (Answer at 15-16.) However, the <br />State ignores the intent of the appropriator, and contends that unknown future development may be <br />considered as part of the "maximum utilization" factor. (Answer at 16-17.) The court, not the <br />CWCB, is charged with interpreting the law, and the court is not bound by an agency interpretation <br />that misconstrues it.. Firstbank-Longmont v. Board of Equalization, 990 P.2d 1109, 1111 (Colo. <br />App. 1999.) In fact, as discussed in Applicant's Closing Brief, to deny or limit a present beneficial <br />use of water in the absence of actual injury antithetical to the concept of "maximtun utilization." See, <br />for example, Application of Park County Sportsmen's Ranch, 986 P.2d 262, 275 (Colo. 1999). <br />(Citing earlier cases holding that "water is available for appropriation if the takuig tYiereof does not <br />cause injury" and that "where senior users can show no injury by the diversion of water they cannot <br />preclude the beneficial use of water by another. [Citation omitted.] This rule serves to ensure the <br />maximum utilization of the tributary waters of this state, in accordan.ce with Article XVI, Section 6, <br />of the ColorE.do Constitution.") The court need not and should not adopt the CWCB's fmdings and <br />-22-