My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Answer Brief of Amici Curiae
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Answer Brief of Amici Curiae
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:40 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 1:56:16 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
9/29/2004
Author
Glenn E. Porzak, Anne J. Castle
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.
/
51
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
After much debate, the General Assembly substantially modified SB 216.3 The bill as <br />passed limited the entities that could claim such rights to local governments and quasi- <br />governmental entities, ensuring accountability and guarding against the danger that individuals <br />might attempt to claim an appropriation by throwing a few boulders in the stream, or that the <br />federal government might attempt to claim an entire stream system. The bill also identified <br />factors for the CWCB and the water court to consider in reviewing RICD applications. <br />Specifically, it directed the CWCB and then the water court to consider the potential impact on <br />compact entitlements, as well as other factors such as appropriate stream reach, access, and <br />maximum utilization. C.R.S. §§ 37-92-102(6)(b), 305(13). Notably, the bill was revised so that <br />its requirements were not retroactive to the recreational water rights applications already <br />pending. C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(d). <br />With the foregoing changes, the bill addressed the policy issues that were raised in the <br />SB 216 hearings, and reconfirmed RICDs as a beneficial use of water in Colorado. The final bill <br />did not, however, give the CWCB the extensive oversight and final authority it sought in the <br />initial version of the bill nor, as explained below, did it give the CWCB any authority to dictate a <br />flow rate for these water rights. Instead, it limited the CWCB's role to making rebuttable <br />findings and a recommendation to the water court. Notwithstanding, through this appeal, the <br />State is essentially asking this Court to grant the CWCB the authority it could not and did not get <br />from the General Assembly. This Court should reject that request as inconsistent with the intent <br />of the legislature and with the state constitution. At a minimum, such a change is within the <br />exclusive domain of the legislature. <br />3 See extensive discussion of the legislative history of SB 216 in the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District Answer brief. <br />Tm 1650 7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.