Laserfiche WebLink
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 />TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />Page <br />1. STATEMENT OF ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 <br />II. STATEMENT OF CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 <br />III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 <br />IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................4 <br />A. The water court did not hold that SB 216 infringes on the <br />constitutional right to appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 <br />1. The water court properly applied SB 216 and <br />acknowledged that SB 216 might require a reduction in the <br />claimed flow rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 <br />2. Recreational use is an established beneficial use of water . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 <br />3. By definition, an RICD requires a statutory diversion of <br />water .......................................................9 <br />B. SB 216 requires the court to measure an RICD first by the intent of <br />the appropriator, subject to possible reduction. A single minimum <br />flow rate for an RICD is not required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 <br />1. SB 216 requires that the initial measure of an RICD must <br />be based on the intent of the appropriator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 <br />2. The minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience <br />can vary substantially, based on the type of recreational use <br />sought by the appropriator who will put the water to <br />beneficialuse ...............................................13 <br />3. The State ignores the obvious difference between instream <br />flow rights and recreational in-channel diversion rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 <br />C. The legislature reserved to the water court the authority to determine the <br />minimum stream flow for the reasonable recreation experience sought by <br />the appropriator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 <br />-i-