Laserfiche WebLink
view that "[h]ad the Legislature intended to deviate from" the pre-SB 216 "traditional water <br />law principles," "they would have said so." (Order, p. 17; Brief, pp. 10, 11). As conceded <br />Uy the Appellee, the Legislature did deviate from pre-SB 216 principles by adding limitations <br />to recreational in-channel uses. (Brief, pp. 11-12). If these other SB 216 limits on in-channel <br />uses are to be given effect, so should the limitation requiring recreational in-channel uses to <br />be limited to the "minimum stream flow" for a reasonable (not extreme, extraordinary or <br />expert-level) 13 experience. <br />It would be unreasonable to interpret the added language "minimum stream flow" as <br />having no meaning or effect beyond the pre-SB 2161imitations for diversionary water rights. <br />Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Bd. v. Brinker, 39 P.3d 1269, 1271 (Colo. App. 2001) (this <br />Court must give effect to each word and phrase used). If the Legislature had not intended for <br />this term to be given separate effect, it would not have added it. Id.; Leonard v. McMorris, <br />63 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2003). <br />If the word "minimum" is ambiguous enough that it can be argued that it means <br />nothing, then this Court should refer to the legislative intent to determine its meaning. If the <br />language is ambiguous, this Court "should construe the language in light of the objective <br />sought to be achieved." Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Bill Bloom, Inc., 961 P.2d 465, 470 (Colo. <br />13While 250 c.f.s might not be an extraordinary experience for expert kayakers, the Appellee's <br />expert repeated that 250 c.f.s would attract experienced kayakers. (Exhibit B; v. V, p. 177; v. <br />VII, pp. 221-222). The State's expert testified that most courses, including world-class, paid- <br />admission and Olympic courses, operate at much lower flows. (v. IV, pp. 230-232, State's <br />Exhibit 19b, p. 5). <br />9