Laserfiche WebLink
a structure or device" on the stream reach. Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 931. <br />The State's argument on this point is also completely inconsistent with the CWCB's own <br />RICD rules which direct the CWCB to recommend against an RICD if it does not "divert, <br />capture and control water in its natural course or location with physical control structures." 2 <br />CCR 408-3(7). These same rules suggest that an applicant for an RICD submit to the CWCB an <br />extensive and costly professional engineering study demonstrating that the physical diversion <br />structures capture and control the amount of water claimed. 2 C.C.R. 408-3(8)(a)(c). The <br />Statement of Basis and Purpose for these rules forecloses any further discussion on this point, <br />and proves the gross inconsistency of the argument the State makes before this Court by <br />explaining that SB 216 "does not bestow upon any individual or entity the authority to <br />appropriate instream flows or minimum lake levels." (Appendix Tab B). <br />VII. FORT COLLINS WAS NOT REPEALED OR LIMITED BY SENATE BILL 212. <br />The State argues that the passage of SB 212 modified the holding in Fort Collins because <br />it provided the CWCB with "exclusive authority" to appropriate in-stream flows under § 37-92- <br />102(3). (State at 9-10). SB 212 is entirely irrelevant because RICDs are not in-stream flow <br />rights as explained above. Even if SB 212 were relevant, no ambiguity regarding the statute <br />exists or is even alleged, thus rendering it inappropriate to consider legislative history in <br />interpreting the statute. See, e.g. City ofAurora v. Bd. of County Commr's, 919 P.2d 19$, 200 <br />(Co1o. 1996). <br />More importantly, this Court expressly applied SB 212 in Fort Collins and expressly <br />rejected the same argument now being made by the State. The original 1986 City of Fort <br />Collins application was for "in-stream flows." Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 919-20. As the State <br />Tm 1650 14