Answer Brief of Amici Curiae

• 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

t
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
STATFMFNT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
ARGUMENT ................................................................3
1. SENATE BILL 216 DID NOT CREATE NEW WATER RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. SENATE BILL 216 DID N4T GTVE THE CWCB THE AUTHORITY
THAT IT SOUGHT FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. SENATE BILL 216 DID NOT GIVE THE CWCB THE AUTHORITY
TO DICTATE A MINIMUM RICD FLOW RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
IV. THE INTENT OF TAE APPROPRIATOR IS AN ESSENTTAL INQUIRY
IN DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A"REASONABLE
RECREATION EXPERIENCE" UNDER SB 216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
V. RICD RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION AS OTHER BENEFICIAL USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
VI. A RICD IS NOT AN INSTREAM FLOW RIGHT AND IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF THE STATE INSTREAM
FLOW PROGRAM ...................................................13
VII. FORT COLLINS WAS NOT REPEALED OR LIMITED
BY SENATE BILL 212 . ................................................14
VIIL RECREATION IS AN ESTABLISHED BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER ......16
IX. RICD RIGHTS SERVE THE STATE POLICY OF
MAXIMUM UTILIZATION .............................................18
X. CONCLUSION ........................................................20
Tm1650
ii