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
III. SENATE BILL 216 DID NOT GIVE THE CWCB THE AUTHORITY TO <br />DICTATE A MINIMUM RICD FLOW RATE. <br />The State argues that the "clear mandate" of SB 216 was "to authorize the CWCB, not <br />the applicant, to determine whether the amount claimed is the minimum stream flow necessary <br />for a reasonable recreation experience." (State at 19, 15-19.) To the contrary, there is nothing in <br />SB 216 that grants this authority to the CWCB. The only factors the CWCB was granted <br />authority to consider are set out in § 37-92-102(6)(b), and the authority to recommend a flow <br />rate is simply not among the five factors specifically identified in that section. <br />Even the catch-all sixth factor in § 37-92-102(6)(b) only allows the CWCB to consider <br />"such other factors as may be determined appropriate for evaluation of recreational in-channel <br />diversions and set forth in rules adopted bv the Board, after public notice and comment." C.R.S. <br />§ 37-92-102(6)(b)(VI) (emphasis added). The rules that the CWCB adopted pursuant to that <br />provision, and how they evolved, contradict the State's argument that SB 216 mandated a <br />minimum flow rate to be imposed by the CWCB independent of the appropriator's intended <br />purpose for a particular boating park. <br />The CWCB's RICD rules were initially proposed so that a reasonable recreational <br />experience was limited to mere safe boat passage. See Draft RICD Rules (Appendix Tab D). <br />Similar to what it now argues in this appeal, these draft rules directed the CWCB to recommend <br />against any RICD claim if, among other limits, the claimed amount was more than necessary "to <br />transport the recreational craft without harm or imminent threat of harm to the recreational <br />participants," or more than "the amount necessary for boat passage through the stream segment." <br />Draft Rules § 12(f)(iii, v). However, the final rule that was promulgated took a very different <br />approach and, consistent with the language of SB 216, directs the CWCB to recommend against <br />Tm 1650 8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.