Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnlsson River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />The State does not argue that the District has failed to meet the traditional requirements for <br />appropriation of a water right. It should be undisputed that those requirements have; been met. <br />II. Argu nent <br />A. SB 216 integrated recreational in-channel diversions into the legislative scheme <br />established by the 1969 Act and the State's interpretation of SB 216 is inconsistent with this <br />legislative sclieme and the leg;islative history of SB 216. <br />The "primary responsibility in any statutory analysis is to give effect to the legislative intent <br />motivating d.e enactment of the statute.... When our analysis involves ... a number of intenelated <br />statutory sections, we must endeavor to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to the <br />statutory sch,-me as a whole...." Simpson v. Bijou Irr. Co., 69 P.3d 50, 59 (Colo. 2003). <br />1. A recreational in-channel diversion is not a new species of water ri ?Yit. <br />The S-tate incorrectly contends that "... the Legislature [by enacting SB 2161 changed existing - <br />water law by recognizing for the first time recreational instream uses." (Answer ;at 6.) In fact, <br />recreational in-channel water rights based on the statutory defuutions of diversion and beneficial use <br />existed prior to SB 216 and were part of the legislative scheme reflected in the 1969 Act, as the <br />Supreme Court made clear in City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 91:5, 930-2 (Colo. <br />1992) ("Fort Collins")3 Fort Collins clarified that recreational uses, being legitimate beneficial uses, <br />3 The State's argument that "recreation" had been allowed only as soine kind of <br />incidental beneficial use is absurd. For example, see Board of Couiaty Commissioners of County <br />-4-