Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

different than pre-SB 216 water rights because of a fear of "inisuse.',12(Brief, p. 11). Further, a review of the legislative history shows that the Legislature believed that it was creating a"change in water law" (Exhibit G and J, pp. 1&2). Because "there [were] no standards and procedures" for this "new kind of water right," the Legislature had to provide the appropriate limitations and procedures for claiming water for instream uses. (Exhibit G, pp. 5, 7, 3). This Court should hold that because recreational in-channel water rights are legislatively, not constitutionally, created, the Legislature can and did limit such uses to the minimum flow necessary for a reasonable recreation experience in order to ensure maximum utilization and fair use of Colorado's water resources. III. SENATE BILL 216 REQUIRES IN-CHANNEL USES TO BE LIMITED TO A MINIMUM STREAM FLOW FOR A REASONABLE RECREATION EXPERIENCE. The Appellee concedes that the Water Court failed to give the word "minimum" in SB 216 any meaning beyond what existed for traditional diversionary water rights. The Appellee argues that SB 216 imposes no "new standard" on recreational in-channel uses and the Water Court "properly declined to impart a meaning to the word `minimum' that would dictate a more restrictive way of quantifying RICD water rights" than pre-SB 216 standards. (Brief, pp. 10-11, 7; Order, pp. 17-19). Both the Water Court and the Appellee adopt the IZThese acknowledged "protections against abuse" in SB 216 include: (1) limiting appropriations to designated local government entities; (2) the CWCB's role "in reviewing each RICD application and making a recommendation thereon to the water court;" and (3) the "requirement that both the CWCB in the performance of its delegated duties and the water court in the exercise of its judicial function consider or apply certain factors," such as Compact impairment. 8