My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:39 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 1:45:37 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
1/1/3000
Author
Peter C. Fleming, Kristin M. Gillespie
Title
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
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.
/
25
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
Supreme Court, State of Colorado (Appeal from District Court, Water Division No. 4, Case No. 02CW38) <br />Case No. 04SA44: Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Answer Brief ofthe Colorado River Water Conservation District <br />of control over refill water released from reservoir); Three Bells Ranch Associates u Cache La <br />Poudre Water Users Ass'n, 758 P.2d 164,173 (Colo. 1988)(use of man-made ponds for recreational <br />purposes "falls within the statutory definition of beneficial use"). This case law unequivocally <br />demonstrates that recreation was confirmed as a beneficial use of water long before the adoption of <br />SB 216. <br />3. By definition, an RICD requires a statutory diversion of water. <br />The State suggests that an RICD is an entirely new creature of statute, and that SB 216 <br />therefore should be construed in a tortuous manner that effectively would place absolute control of <br />recreational water rights in the hands of the CWCB. The basis of the State's position is that SB 216 <br />legislatively enacted a rare exception to the historical diversion requirement necessary to obtain a <br />water right and that an RICD therefore is a new type of instream flow. State's Opening Brief, p. 8, <br />13. The State then claims that, because the CWCB has special expertise in non-diversionary water <br />rights, SB 216 vested the CWCB with the exclusive authority to determine the minimum flow rate <br />of an RICD. State's Opening Brief, p. 19. The State's argument fails for a number ofreasons, but <br />particularly because it requires the Court to ignore that an RICD, by definition, requires a statutory <br />diversion of water. <br />An RICD is statutory defined as: <br />The minimum stream flow as it is diverted, captured, controlled and placed to <br />beneficial use between specific points defined by physical control structures pursuant <br />to an application filed by [certain municipal and quasi-municipal entities] for a <br />reasonable recreation experience in and on the water. <br />C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3) (2003) (Emphasis added). <br />Page 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.