My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:38 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 12:57:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
10/15/2004
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
Title
Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44
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.
/
34
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
." X 1B1T <br />? _?- <br />S .B . 216 Legislative Statement <br />S.B. 216 is designed to ensure that decrees for recreational in-channel diversions, as <br />recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court in the City of Thornton v. City of Fort <br />Collins case, are integrated into the srate priar appropriation system in a manner which <br />appropriately balances the need for water based recreational opportunities with the ability <br />af Colorado citizens to divert and store water under our compact entitlements for more <br />traditional consumptive use purposes, such as municipal, industrial and agricultural uses. <br />It does not bestow upon any individual oz' entity the authority to appropriate instream <br />flows or minimum lake levels. This remains the exclusive prerogative of the Colorado <br />Water ConservatianBoard. . <br />The bill accomplishes its objectives by expressly providing for the follovving: <br />1. It specifically limits the category of entities that can obtain such decrees to those <br />public and quasi-public entities identified in-the bill. <br />2. It defines "recreational in-channel diversions" such that only the "minunum" flow <br />necessary to support the recreational activity can be sought, with physical control <br />structures defining the upstream and downstream extent of the right. The waters are <br />to be controlled by the applicant in the identified reach, with applica.nt holding an <br />ownership interest in the la.nds abutting the reach. By way of example; this would <br />mea.n that- applica.nt could potentially obta.in a right to the mi:nimum amount of water <br />necessary to flaat a kayak through a consixucted course consisiing oi boat.chutes <br />_ within the rea.ch, such that there would exist a reasonable recreation experience, while <br />ensuring that the entire flow of the rea.ch is not dedicated to this right. It is <br />anticipated that under the bill the CVVCB wi11 establish further criteria governing sucn <br />diversions, such as additional guidance upon the appropriate tisne of day, season of <br />use, length of reach and minimum utilization demands, in order that additional <br />objective benchmarks-for judging the propriety of such appropriations are established. <br />3. The bill bestows upon the CWCB the obligation to review applications for <br />recreational in-channel diversions and to submit its recommendations thereon to the <br />water court prior to the entry of any decree therefor. It provides statutory criteria for <br />the CWCB to follow in fulfilling such responsibility. It requires that the water court <br />not only consider the recommendations of the CWCB relative to `?he grant or denial of <br />the application, but that the court specifically take into account the criteria set forth in <br />section 37-92-102(5)(b), including as such may be subsequently supplemented by the <br />C WCB through rulemaking.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.