Laserfiche WebLink
Trout Unlimited argues that this Court has never limited the type of water right that <br />can constitute a beneficial use," and the Appellee erroneously argues that the Legislature's <br />addition of the word "minimum" in SB 216 imposes no additional limits on the amount of <br />water that can be claimed. This Court should reject these arguments and uphold the <br />legislative authority to limit in-channel recreation uses to the "minimum stream flow," as SB <br />216 requires. <br />This Court has consistently recognized the Legislature's right to define and limit <br />beneficial uses. "All water within Colorado is a public resource. No person has ownership in <br />this public resource; rather, persons may obtain rights of use under applicable provisions <br />of law." Upper Black Scuirrel Ground Water Management District v. Goss, 993 P.2d 1177, <br />1181 (Colo. 2000) (emphasis added); Farmers High Line Canal Reservoir Co. v. Citv of <br />Golden, 975 P.2d 189, 198 (Colo. 1999). The legislature has "the power to regulate the <br />manner of effecting" any appropriation or diversion. Fox v. Division Engineer for Water <br />Division 5, 810 P.2d 644, 643 (1991); Kuiper v. Warren, 580 P.2d 32, 35-36 (Colo.1978); <br />Larimer Co. v. Luthe, 9 P. 794, 797 (Colo. 1886). <br />"The administration of a person's water right depends upon the category of water to <br />which the use right attaches." Upper Black Squirrel, 993 P.2d at 1181-82. In-channel or <br />11"This Court has never regarded the concept of beneficial use as a restraint on the type of use to <br />which water is placed." (Brief, p. 5). However, this Court has recognized that certain uses, such <br />as the riparian "maintenance of the flow of the stream" or speculative uses, do not constitute <br />beneficial uses in Colorado. Rockv Mountain, 406 P.2d at 800. <br />6