Laserfiche WebLink
instream uses are a different category of water use than traditional diversionary rights. <br />Rockv Mt. Power, 406 P.2d at 800; CWCB, 594 P.2d at 572, 574. Thus, the Legislature has <br />the clear authority to define terms, such as beneficial use, or to limit in-channel or instream <br />flow appropriations to "minimum" amounts. See e. ., Id.; Colorado Ground Water Com'n v. <br />North Kiowa-Bijou Groundwater Management Dist., 77 P.3d 62, 78 (Colo. 2003). <br />The Appellee and others argue that the word "minimum" should not be applied as a <br />limit on recreational instream uses and that in-channel uses should not be treated any <br />differently from pre-SB 216 rights. Ignoring the plain language of SB 216, the Appellee <br />argues that it would be "a drastic change from Colorado water law as to limit recreational in- <br />channel water rights" to an amount of water less than other water rights. (Brief, p. 10). To <br />the contrary, the drastic change in Colorado water law occurred when the Legislature <br />allowed instream and in-channel uses. It would be "an extreme departure from well <br />established doctrine" to hold "that a minimum flow of water may be `appropriated' in a <br />natural stream for piscatorial purposes without diversion of any portion of the water <br />`appropriated' from the natural course of the stream." Power, 406 P.2d at 800. <br />The Appellee argues that it is "patently untrue" that "SB 216 `created a change in <br />water law." (Brief, p. 15). But despite this argument, the Appellee acknowledges that the <br />Legislative history shows an intent to limit recreational in-channel uses in a manner that is <br />7