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
candid. It fails to acknowledge its prior admission that the intent of the appropriator is relevant <br />and, in fact, is expressly incorporated in the definition of RICD at § 37-92-103(10.3) by the <br />phrase "pursuant to an application.s4 <br />Given the foregoing, inquiries about whether the claimed amounts are reasonable are not <br />made in the abstract according to some CWCB - imposed, statewide minimum flow or safe <br />passage flow rate; rather, such inquiries must be judged in the context of whether the water <br />claimed is the minimum amount for the appropriator's intended beneficial use - i.e., as explained <br />in the definition of beneficial use, whether the appropriation will "accomplish without waste the <br />purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made." C.R.S. § 37-92-103(4)(emphasis added). <br />This traditional definition of beneficial use, which was specifically amended to include RICDs <br />by SB 216, is the approach that was taken by the water court, and it should be affirmed. <br />V. RICD RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL <br />PROTECTION AS OTHER BENEFICIAL USES. <br />The water court was correct when it held: <br />To preclude an applicant from determining precisely the size and scope of any <br />recreational in-channel diversion would appear to infringe on the constitutional <br />right to appropriate. <br />Decision at 19. <br />The State misconstrues this holding by arguing that the water court in effect held that <br />there are no limits on the "size and scope" of RICD water rights. (State at 6, 11; State Amici at <br />17-22). That argument is a strawman that does not properly reflect the careful analysis in the <br />4 The complete definition of RICD at C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3) reads: "`Recreational in-channel diversion' means <br />the minimum stream flow as it is diverted, captured, controlled, and placed to beneficial use between specific points <br />defined by physical control structures pursuant to an application filed by a county, municipality, city and county, <br />water district, water and sanitation district, water conservation district, or water conservancy district for a reasonable <br />recreation experience in and on the water." <br />Tm 1650 10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.